spalen

just reading in the Sky news website that the BA CEO has taken away the "perks" for the cabin crew that went on strike. they lose the hugely subsidized travel that they benefited from before the strike.

Of course the union say this is "vindictive" , BA say " We warned you ! " - and they did warn them, they told the staff - if you go on strike, you will lose these perks permanently.

Unite are now saying "This is the clearest possible example of BA's bullying and contemptuous approach to its employees. Cabin crew showed last weekend that they will not be intimidated."Unite will challenge this vindictive move in whatever way seems appropriate."

Yeah good luck - union idiots. I'd like to see "whatever way seems appropriate" perhaps they could go on strike again.

Maggie will no doubt be giggling (even more than her normal level of insane giggling) and Lord Scargill will no doubt be frothing at the mouth (mind you he is 72).

I'm really pleased that BA did this. I never fly on that airline now I have the horrors of qantas to play with but I love the fact that they stood firm and are going to hit the staff that went on strike. They fully deserve it.

Is it just me or are *all* union leaders Scottish?

Deutschmaster

I'm just glad I'm flying Malaysian this weekend.

Wol

>>just reading in the Sky news website that the BA CEO has taken away the "perks" for the cabin crew that went on strike. they lose the hugely subsidized travel that they benefited from before the strike.<<

I can't disagree with your comments except that their travel perks are not "hugely subsidised". They are standby in one form or another so actually cost the airline(s) very little compared with the benefit to the employee - the seats would be empty if not used, so no revenue is in fact lost. Incidental costs are minimal.

Contrast that with say a company car - even at fleet rates it costs a company a considerable amount to buy and maintain. Even Ford - after all, they have to manufacture each one and buy the materials. *Thats* subsidies!

bcworld

By most accounts BA have done a pretty commendable job of keeping things moving during the first strike period - helped a lot by many cabin crew turning up for work who must've either voted 'Yes' or abstained from the strike vote.

The unions of course have tried to paint a different picture but the numbers of flights operating speak for themselves.

Their unions have also done a great job of failing to communicate to cabin crew the implications of their strike. As well as the loss of staff travel (they still get industry discount fares), many striking staff will find they will go unpaid for not only the strike days but also the period in between when they go unrostered.

BA are continuing to train volunteer staff, many of whom weren't even need during the first strike so if the strikes continue there will probably be very little impact to operations.

Really think BA has the unions over a barrel this time.

moneypenny20

I could be wrong, but I don't think you're allowed to say that. Not completely sure why but no doubt someone will tell me.

If they told the union that that's what they would do then good on them for doing it. Couldn't really care less about BA, I'm surprised they didn't go under years ago. Must be one of the last union in the UK to actually think they can control an industry (company really but you know what I mean).