[Closed] Vindictive? or fair enough? (BA content)

Very vindictive and just hopeless managing of the situation.

Fair enough.

Its a benefit for an employee, if the employee wants to act against the company then why should the employer continue to offer the benefit.

I think the cabin crew have made themselves look very bad over this whole issue.

I liked it last week when the union came out of negotiations bleating about the offer being reduced. Walsh then came out, and said "of course their offer has been reduced, they are striking and it's costing us money, so we are offering them less".

Absolutely fair enough...

Even though i can understand the staff's anger, they need to get in touch with the real world as i believe they enjoy better terms and far better pay than staff at other airlines.
Where on earth did Unite get that 1970's millitant scally union guy from ??

"Vindictive? or fair enough?"

sooner or later, some lawyers are going to be remarkably well paid for sorting that one out

(If BA survives, that is)

It's a perk, not a contractual benefit.

Hardly likely to matter to the staff, when they won't have a job soon. My brother is a BA trolley dolley, he signed up over 15 years ago, why should they have the right to just completely change his terms & conditions, after he's provided them 15 years service?
I think most 'right minded' ppl would be upset if their employer did it to them.

The cabin crew agreed to exactly the same terms that the flight crews did right from the beginning, but no Walsh thinks there idiots who aren't required & wouldn't agree. He's spent loads of money to train up temporary staff, who aren't able to provide any of the normal services the trolley dolley do, must be a harder job than they thought eh?.

Walsh has done nothing but line his own pocket & f*ck everyone else over, all the was through his MD-ship.

My brothers off sick & so is not participating eitherway btw. Mainly I think because he believes they'll all be screwed over in the end.

Why would you continue to offer a perk to staff that have undermined the viability of your business? They were warned and still went on strike. No point bleating about it now. Unite, to me, seem to have lost any semblence of grip on reality over this dispute and have not done themselves any favours at all. Willie Walsh is being strong and firm about what the business needs to continue to run and be profitable thus keeping jobs and paying staff. Unite don't like it, get stampy feet and appear to take it personally and escalate the dispute. Because it is now personal they have lost sight of the damage their action is doing to BA and that while they may ultimately win a battle, the cost may turn out to be BA and they will have succeeded in not protecting anything for their members. Of course, Unite man will still have his job at the end of it, so he's all right jack. Numbnuts!

Its a hard one this. The cabin crew are clearly in cloud cuckoo land and being lead by an idiot on one hand. On the other, Walsh has been cast from the same mould as that twunt O'Leary. Its hard to know who to hate more 👿

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. BA pilots took a collective pay cut to avoid redundancies.

I work (as a contractor) for a large low cost airline and don't get any free travel perks and actually earn less as a pilot than BA pays their cabin crew.

[i]BA pilots took a collective pay cut to avoid redundancies.[/i]#

Lets try this again eh? [b] "The cabin crew agreed to exactly the same terms that the flight crews did right from the beginning" [u]but Walsh would not accept it.[/u][/b]

This to me is a classic post Thatche industrial dispute.

management want to make changes and have a business case to do so. A mnacho stance is adopted by the management and changes are imposed unilaterally and no negotiation is considered.

Staff get grumpy and threaten strike. Management take this as an opportunity to show how macho they are and escalate things so in a tit for tat manner the staff side do as well.

for example - there was an offer on the table that could have been a basis for settlement. After the vote in favour of strike but before any action this offer was removed and the staff side were told it would not be offered again only a reduced offer. Remember at that point no strike action had been taken

Then there is the suspension of all union activists. Illegal.

Now the threat of removal of "perks" - which will end up in court or have to be dropped as it is a part of their contract under "custom and practice"

its a stupid dispute made worse by macho posturing from both sides but the management have clearly both escalated the dispute and failed to manage well.

As an object lesson in how to create a bitter industrial dispute and how to ruin a business its a shining example. all should be ashamed of themselves and especially the management for a clear and abject failure to lead.

In Germany this would never have happened as there is not the culture of confrontation from both sides.

I don't know the details of this but it seems that over 90% of the workforce voting for industrial action is more than just trouble makers and fools. I personaly think the problem is the fact that other employers get away with paying their staff as little as they can get away with. Force everyone else up to BA's level instead of dragging them down!
Then pay for it by cutting the amount in dividends they give the greedy share holders with their snouts in the trough.

Think I might start a revolution from my bed!

z1ppy - source? And please not from the Unite website!

source, my brother a fricken BA Trolley dolley, you know them that are stiking!

its a stupid dispute made worse by macho posturing from both sides but the management have clearly both escalated the dispute and failed to manage well.

You think? Look at the cost structures of BA and compare them to other airlines. You'll notice that employee costs at BA represent almost one third of their total cost structure and that this is significantly higher than for other airlines.

Cabin Service Directors on the older contracts earn around £50-60k a year. You tell me whether you think that's reasonable for what is effectively a hospitality role.

BA absolutely has to reduce its employee cost base or it won't survive. The pilots (I am married to one) have taken a 20% cut in pay. I've taken a 20% cut in my pay having been laid off and returned to work (not in the airline industry). The cabin crew need to realise that they are not immune from economic reality and that they are going to have to swallow this. It's not even as if they are cutting their pay! The dispute is over moving from 15 to 14 cabin crew on long haul flights and introducing new contracts to new joiners.

Lets try this again eh? "The cabin crew agreed to exactly the same terms that the flight crews did right from the beginning" but Walsh would not accept it.

Possibly because cabin crew are easier to hire and train than pilots? Possibly because their pay is more out of sync with the industry - BA pilots are not especially well paid compared to other airlines BUT their terms and conditions, i.e. working hours etc, are more favourable.

Fair enough, its a perk is it not ?

If its in their coontract it could be difficult ?

[i]Lets try this again eh? "The cabin crew agreed to exactly the same terms that the flight crews did right from the beginning" but Walsh would not accept it.[/i]

Possibly because cabin crew are easier to hire and train than pilots? Possibly because their pay is more out of sync with the industry - BA pilots are not especially well paid compared to other airlines BUT their terms and conditions, i.e. working hours etc, are more favourable.

and... so why then are they portrayed to be thieving pikies who have done nothing but try to line their own pockets?
They understand the situation and offered a compromise (the same that the other BA employees were offered), Walsh has done nothing but try to f*ck them over.

Neither I nor my brother see it ending well, but I'm annoyed by the constant bleating on here that there trying to destroy the business, the business is trying to destroy itself.

for example - there was an offer on the table that could have been a basis for settlement. After the vote in favour of strike but before any action this offer was removed and the staff side were told it would not be offered again only a reduced offer. Remember at that point no strike action had been taken

The offer was clearly only offered as long as no strike action/date was announced while negotiations continued.

Despite which; Unite announced that if resolution wasn't found, they would strike on March x/y/z (forgive me, don't remember what 3 days they were on strike last week).

From that point on BA started losing money in refunds / cancellations / lost bookings. And they withdrew the offer, as they said they would, and replaced it with a different (inferior) one. Then Unite started on that if BA reinstated the prvious offer they'd talk again.

I have sympathies with both sides here but on this point, whether you consider them fair over the withdrawal of the offer at least they have stuck to their position.

I think its fair. They are financially hurting the company.

All boils down to. Why are the Unions so against dropping one member from each crew? Can't they understand the need? BA isnt a public sector company ffs.

why should they have the right to just completely change his terms & conditions, after he's provided them 15 years service?

Didn't he get a salary too? fk me, things change over the course of 15 years, you can't expect things never to change.

source, my brother a fricken BA Trolley dolley, you know them that are stiking!

With respect, that's not a particularly impartial source.

BA isnt a public sector company ffs.

What is your point caller?

Public sector is run differently to someone like BA. BA is at the mercy of market forces no?

Thats a point. Hold a meeting with all the crews and say 'would you prefer to work for Ryaniar'? 😯

Mr W. Walsh is no fool.
Prior to the strike, he parked dozens & dozens of aircraft away from H’row so any air images on TV and in the papers won’t look bad.

If you’re a plane spotter, it’s plane heaven at H’row at present as he’s sub contracting much of the work out to smaller carriers as they’re not on strike.

If you believe it’s simply because they want one less cabin crew on each flight, then you need to take your head out of the sand!

"Despite which; Unite announced that if resolution wasn't found, they would strike on March x/y/z (forgive me, don't remember what 3 days they were on strike last week)"

there are clear reasons for that though - already 1 ballot declared invalid & another taken (still heavily "for"). Once done, they had a smallish window within which to actually take action and have to give notice (1 calendar week ?) prior to doing so. I believe they left it to pretty much the last minute and BA management would have been well aware of that too.

(I'm in the "both sides are going to bugger this up" camp, BTW - and I'm booked on a BA flight for an upcoming potential strike day)

Public sector is run differently to someone like BA. BA is at the mercy of market forces no?

Of course, I just don't see what relevance it has to the discussion.

TJ you do like to make us laugh with your views. 😆

"In Germany this would never have happened as there is not the culture of confrontation from both sides."

Have a read below.

All travelers that are heading into Germany are preparing for even further delays. This news comes as pilots from Lufthansa prepare for a second strike next month. Pilots at the airline, which is actually the largest airline in all of Germany, will walk out for four days starting April 13th in a dispute over pay and job security.

This decision follows a strike at the German flag carrier that took place in February. Pilots returned to work just one day after the strike took place. They choose to return following a decision by unions to resume negotiation with the airline.

Lufthansa has been seeking to reduce costs amid falling demand and big financial losses. The German airline did say in a recent statement that the latest offer was compatible with the company’s situation and economic condition. Pilots will be told they must accept a pay freeze that lasts up to two years.

Neither I nor my brother see it ending well, but I'm annoyed by the constant bleating on here that there trying to destroy the business, the business is trying to destroy itself.

Look I can understand why your brother is upset and why other cabin crew are upset. It ****ed me right off when I got made redundant and then had to take a job at 20% less pay than before. But that's business and it really doesn't matter how you feel.

Of course BA management are not trying to destroy the company. Apart from anything else that is completely illegal. By law, directors have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, which means by law they are required to put their shareholders interests first and foremost within the wider legal context of operating a business (i.e. all those laws that sort of make unions technically redundant from their original purpose which was to prevent shady and down right dangerous working practices).

The cabin crew are being villified because the media and public at large generally see their behaviour (or more accurately the unions behaviour as it's the union that's stoking this boiler) as being that of a spoilt child. They get paid vastly better than the rest of the industry and they aren't really being asked to swallow anything more painful than the rest of us have had to swallow. On top of which, their actions cause misery and grief to hundreds of thousands of passengers.

flaperon, as he's not taken part in the ballot or strike (due to sickness) you'll just have to take my word he's impartial. Can't see anyone else offering anything but daily mail style abuse.

t®ibal©hief - Member

why should they have the right to just completely change his terms & conditions, after he's provided them 15 years service?

Didn't he get a salary too? fk me, things change over the course of 15 years, you can't expect things never to change.

So you'd just roll over and accept it, if it was done to you?
(unlike BA stewards who offered to accept the previous offer to other BA staff had, but were told no)

I thought we lived in a society where long service was a sign of your respect for a decent company, not one where the longer your with a company the more the f*ck you over. Hey ho.

TJ you do like to make us laugh with your views.

"In Germany this would never have happened as there is not the culture of confrontation from both sides."

Actually by and large TJ is right on this one. Unions play a very different role in Germany to that here. They are not typically confrontational, but rather act in collaboration with the employers. There are exceptions and the one cited here is just that, but other wise, it is quite different. It's one of the underpinnings of Germany being known as an 'alliance capitalism' rather than the UK/US 'anglo saxon' model of capitalism.

BA is at the mercy of market forces no?

Agree. While I feel sorry that the staff are facing the prospect of change, they need make the company still attractive to customers to keep the company in business.

No business = No jobs. Its happened to other UK companies, and the governement has already showed that its doesn't care about UK based companies going to the dog (Rover)

I am one person that can't trust what will happen at BA in the future and have taken my money elsewhere for my flights to New Zealand.
My company has also issued instructions to use alternative airlines for its business travel - may only be a small number of BA's customers, but if other companies are going this way.........

I think it is totally fair enough.

Shooting themselves in the foot really with striking, they'll soon have no job to return to.

Fair enough. I'm no fan of either side in this dispute, but all's fair in love, war and industrial action. Walsh is just using everything at his disposal to save the company from the irresponsible actions of his crew.

I no longer work for BA but I am a BA Pensioner (or at least will be one day!). These people are jeopardising my future as well as theirs, so for me it's personal.

There has to be some consequences to their actions, and hitting them where it hurts most is a good thing. Staff Travel is a seriously good perk, and why many of them come to work. 1-0 to Walsh I think, but the game's not over yet.

Public sector is run differently to someone like BA. BA is at the mercy of market forces no?

Of course, I just don't see what relevance it has to the discussion.

I think the point being made here is that BA was originally publically owned and the contracts that are in place for many long standing employees are a legacy from that time and thus don't reflect current market conditions.

Which makes the Unions actions even more bizarre. They can see where they used to be, where they need to be to survive. Its hardly as though the competitors info and situation etc etc info isnt freely available is it?!

Its almost as tho they are saying 'we would rather break the companies back than make any concession'.

BA need to break the Union. Sad that its coming to this 🙁

'we would rather break the companies back than make any concession'

Nail

Head

Hit

To be fair to Unite, I strongly suspect this has a lot more to do with establishing their strength for the future battles that will inevitably follow versus a desire to specifically see BA hurt. They are using this dispute to show their teeth so that when the bigger battles arise, their opponents fear them more. Which sort of make the cabin crew naive pawns in their game.

It's interesting that, despite the "Unite" union being an amalgamation of two former independent unions and retaining a "joint" leadership, nothing has been seen on our screens of this man:

[img] [/img]

who is tweedledee to Tony Woodley's tweedledum.

The two halves hate each other. One is lead by a communist fellow-traveller of the likes of Brian Crowe over at the rail unions, and the other is an old-fashioned "when-I've-done-my-bit-make-me-a-lord" Old Labour style apparatchick.

The reason is, there's a lot of positioning going on for best advantage following CallMeDave's victory in May...

Old Labour style apparatchik.

Impressed with the fact you got to use the word 'apparatchik' and in a derogatory way also!

I see quite a few cabin crew in my job being that I'm based in West Sussex and the BA one's are the highest paid out of the lot given the hours they fly for.

I know BA cabin crew who do long haul (4-5 trips per month) and earn circa £35-40k of which nearly £25-30k is basic. No one else that flies out of the UK offers that level of salary.

The short haul BA staff who are/used to be badged as GB Airways get a lot less and fly more days with similar total monthly hours.

Ask most cabin crew and they admit that they are glorified waiters/waitresses now i know the conditions they work in and training that they have to go through is tough but when the world is in recession there has to be a certain amount of reality given to the situation.

geetee1972

Don't disagree with you on unions in Germany (as a generalisation) but like many things that TJ asserts as truth it sometimes is not, though he believes it to be (I hope). 😉

i believe BA is known in the finacial world as a pension fund with wings

its benefits and salaries are way above that of competitors and the management just want to bring it down to what they consider a decent level

geetee1972 - Member

Old Labour style apparatchik.

Impressed with the fact you got to use the word 'apparatchik' and in a derogatory way also!

Thanks, but it really wasn't difficult. I notice my spelling wasn't completely correct, though.

I'd like to reassure any Unite fans that it wasn't an attempt to impugn Mr Woodley's sexuality, or nuffink. Like...

Whatever the [alleged]superb perks and terms and conditions no one [worker , manager , MP] will give them up after years of enjoying them just because others people doing other jobs dir ither companies dont have them. It is human nature to try and protect what you have even if what you have is an unfair share - see Tesco, billionaires ,footballers the list is literally endless.
Whether BA MUST do this or go bust is conjecture at presnet but if they were attempting ot reduce their cost base by reducing staff costs the 90% vote for a strike demonstrates that management has spectacularily failed to manage this change adequately ...whether this is deliberate to create a fight or ineptitude I cannot tell. However, offering a deal in negotiations and then withdrawing it afterwards is provocative in the extreme and I suspect them MD wanted this fight. I cannot really tell why he would offer something and then withdraw it - the union had to strike within 28 days of the ballot that is the law he surely knew this and they had little choice but to announce dates the strike could still have easily been prevented.

FWIW I am a Union rep and it really does take a lot to get people to actually strike they are fairly rare these days management really have to be cr@p at listening to their employees to let it get to that point It is rare to find a BA employee who is a rabid left wingers hell bent on the destruction of capitalism system via direct action

why should they have the right to just completely change his terms & conditions, after he's provided them 15 years service

Because if they don't, the company could be at risk.

If the company I worked for was struggling, I'd not complain about changes in conditions. If you do not make changes YOU WILL NOT HAVE A JOB! I can't see what the big deal is here.

Junkyard - that's a very well put argument (a few typos but nothing we can't forgive :wink:), even if it's not one I wholly agree with.

How willy walsh is still in his job after all these years of shite leadership at BA is beyond me.

Time and time again he picks fights that cost the company significantly more than they are designed to save. Current one is supposed to create 84m of savings, probably will eventually cost the business 10 times that. If I was a share holder I would be splitting blood.

Its very easy to slag off workers for self interest but they chose to work or stay at BA because of their terms and conditions why should they give them up because Walsh wants to come over all macho. How many on here would happily give up the car, bupa, whatever else AND take a cut in wages?

geetee1972 - Member

Actually by and large TJ is right on this one. Unions play a very different role in Germany to that here

Ta

Its very easy to slag off workers for self interest but they chose to work or stay at BA because of their terms and conditions why should they give them up because Walsh wants to come over all macho. How many on here would happily give up the car, bupa, whatever else AND take a cut in wages?

If it meant I had a chance at keeping my job, then yes. Everyone knows the dire financial state of BA.

A cut in benefit and wages is a whole lot better than trying to find a new job. And lets face it, even with the cut, they are likely to still be paid significantly higher than the rest of the industry.

Keep going like this, and they will find out what its really like out there. I can only see this ending one way now.

Too right, christ i would give up benefits in a second if i got to keep my job.

I am interviewing some highly experienced people for jobs well below them at the moment due to the thin line in work out there. Time for the cabin crew to take the blinkers off.

Interestingly I flew BA back from the US on Saturday 20th March when they were striking there was all this hype about it! Barely noticed a difference except no hot food on the flight, no duty free (now that was a blinking god send, them not bleating over the tannoy every 2 minutes after some cr** perfume or cudddly toy!) and less attendance. They only asked if you wanted a drink maybe 2 or 3 times throughout the 9 hour flight, however they were happy for people to go to them at the back and ask them for snacks/munchies or drinks!!!
Oh and got a $9 food voucher to eat in the airport as there wasn't so much food on the flight!

Don't think you'll find much sympathy for the strike for those within BA that are not trolley dollies. Most haven't had a payrise for 3-4 years now.

The management need to make BA competitive - I think we'd all agree on this

Common sense says that if they're paying over the odds for staff, they need to work out a way to reduce that - Again, I think most would agree with that.

What the management have done badly is actually implemented this. Staff at companies around the country/world have taken pay cuts or similar by agreement because they can see the necessity of it. So either the BA staff who are striking are all numpties only out for what they can get in the short term or they don't really properly understand why the changes are necessary.

The fact that it's come to a strike is the result of this and will always mean that people take it personally so logic goes out of the window and it ends up far more damaging. From a cold logical POV, I totally understand why previous offers were withdrawn by the management but then maybe it wasn't the best way to manage a situation that had already got out of hand.

I suspect that what will eventually happen is that BA continues to make a loss because they can't make the changes they need to and because customers won't use them (speaking from experience here) and either goes bust or gets bought by someone else who can turn it round.

Exactly clubber - good management would have managed change without creating this dispute.

Funny Clubber, all the other staff in BA have done their bit without complaint so the management must be doing something right.

Well in those instances, yes, breatheeasy - in this specific case, I do wonder why it's different. Maybe they are all numpties but if the percentage in favour is reaching 90% then I have to suspect that the management have gone wrong somewhere - and note that as I said, that doesn't necessarily mean that what they're proposing is wrong, just the way that it's been presented to people.

Overall - a sense that both management and unions have failed. I have been working for the same company for the last 25 years - or rather I have never left the company. It is on its fourth owner and the work I do has changed hugely. My T&Cs have changed throughout the process. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise. Lack of pay rises has become the norm, reduced benefits have become standard. With one exception the staff have gone along with it. Those that didn't like it, left.
The same will have to happen here. BA cannot continue with its current wage structure. Unite must know that. BA management basically have triggered the strike by getting Unite in a corner and calling their bluff. I suspect none of the staff want to lose pay but Unite and the BA management are forced into a situation where the staff lose out.
(I suspect the perks have gone for good - if it ain't in your T&C's but is part of the goodwill that the company hands out then they can withdraw it at any time. If it is your T&C's then the taxman will want his share too!)
All in all the 'losers' are the staff. At a guess I suspect the agreement at the end will be reduced manning levels, the poor agreement offered by BA and the re-instatement of the perks. Pointless from both sides

Where on earth did Unite get that 1970's millitant scally union guy from ??

Liverpool.

so you work for a loss making company and rather than accept a job in the future you want them to carry on making a loss until the business sinks.

A job is not for life its for as long as your notice period.

The problem isnt really a lack of realism from the workforce, the problem is that the management has escalated the dispute to a point where they are betting the future of the business in order to win a relatively small cost reduction.

Clubber's point is well made, the fact that BA has failed to come to a compromise with its staff and has created the current deadlock is a lack decent management (or perhaps a need to pick a fight). In most cases or a workforce to vote 90+% for industrial action the management would need to be proposing something pretty unpalatable.

fair enough sack them all

Lack of pay rises has become the norm, reduced benefits have become standard. With one exception the staff have gone along with it. Those that didn't like it, left.

If this is allowed to become the norm everywhere, all of us are worse off apart from those who run the business and shareholders. Does that sound like a change for the better? I'm not interested in the specifics of the BA dispute, just the general principle. Get paid £30k for pushing a trolley? Fair play, sounds ok to me 🙂 There is always a lot of petty jealousy around these threads, people need to focus on their own lives a bit more.

If this is allowed to become the norm everywhere, all of us are worse off apart from those who run the business and shareholders. Does that sound like a change for the better?

Finally, someone talking sense.

Lack of inflationary pay rises is unlikely to become the norm across the board for obvious reasons. It will happen in companies that are paying over what they can afford at present and need to cut their cost base (eg like BA!) but can only go on for so long or the people who are good will eventually leave as they get effectively paid less. Once again, choice to stay at a company is always there.

Pay rises (non-inflationary) shouldn't be the norm as they are at some places it seems - they should be based on performance.

But looking on the bright side, anything that causes fewer people to fly has to be a good thing?

Whilst I agree the BA management haven't handled this amazingly well I don't get all this bullshit that they should compromise on their demands. I'd happily place a bet on a BA exec knowing more about what they need to save on costs to have a viable business in the future than someone who pushes a trolley around at 30000 feet.

Pay rises (non-inflationary) shouldn't be the norm as they are at some places it seems - they should be based on performance.

All well and good, except PRP is not actually that great a motivator in most instances and it would be difficult to objectively measure the performance of an individual trolly dolly.

I'd happily place a bet on a BA exec knowing more about what they need to save on costs to have a viable business in the future than someone who pushes a trolley around at 30000 feet.

I dare say a mill owner once knew more about saving costs than the small boys who used to dodge the flying shuttles to collect the fluff under the looms.

As a frequent user of BA, it seems to me that until a few years ago BA looked very much like a business that was run for the benefit of the staff rather than the customers. Most of the crew on higher pay will be the longer serving people who remember this and will naturally do their best to keep living in the past (and who can blame them, it always looked like a cushy number to me as I stood waiting in a sweaty immigration queue whilst the crew marched past on their way to the car waiting to take them to their expensive hotel). And I think Unite is exploiting this situation - Unite have a window to behave badly whilst Gordon is desperate for their money and won't get in the way, and I doubt if they care if BA goes bust. At the same time they know that Walsh will push things as far as he can. Can't see any way this can end well for the striking crew who are (perhaps naive) pawns in this game.

'I aint gettin' on no goddam' plane... crazy FOOL'

I dare say a mill owner once knew more about saving costs than the small boys who used to dodge the flying shuttles to collect the fluff under the looms.

You are taking the piss, surely?

As a frequent user of BA, it seems to me that until a few years ago BA looked very much like a business that was run for the benefit of the staff rather than the customers.

How lazy is this? Can you be bothered to develop a point instead of this vague nonsense?

Firstly, if you didn't like it, why didn't you fly with someone else? That would be applying the market forces you seem to think are so cool?

Secondly, good businesses are run for the benefit of the stakeholders, which include the staff and customers. But actually, I think you will find that most businesses are run for neither the benefit of the staff or the customers - they are run for the benefit of the owners of the business!!!

Firstly, if you didn't like it, why didn't you fly with someone else?

One might assume whoever he worked for had a deal with them, rather than him flying from his own choice?

One might, in which case shouldn't he take it up with the people he was working for?

Or maybe he should just have been thankful he wasn't being packed off on RyanAir?

Trouble is, young people today don't know they're born.

As a frequent user of BA, it seems to me that until a few years ago BA looked very much like a business that was run for the benefit of the staff rather than the customers.

Totally agree with this, I think Virgin cabin staff are so much better than BA it's not funny. The BA cabin staff look disinterested and fed up.

@rightplacerighttime, I have never had a choice in who I fly with (apart from holiday trips), do you think the adminstators at most companies give a shit if the staff are surley on BA flights?

No, I don't. But if it's such a massive problem, maybe you should ask your administrators not to book you with BA?

BA might be crap, but I'm not really interested in that. What I am interested in is why people continually moan about everything and expect everyone else to conform to their ideals, when clearly it isn't going to happen.

If you like BA, fly BA. If you don't like BA, don't fly BA. If your firm tells you to fly BA and you don't like it, then complain, or leave, or accept that you're actually not that really bothered, but are probably short of something of real significance to moan about.

I've only followed this through the media, so don't have any minute detail, however what comes across to me as a member of Joe Public is that BA is struggling, and wish to reduce costs, which has happened in a lot of private sector businesses and will happen soon in the public sector.

The Unite members were told a number of weeks ago that strike would mean loss of travel perks, so now that the strike has become reality, the threat has become reality.

The fact that unite members are so unhappy over this issue makes their strike actions seem very selfish.