# Greedy BA Cabin Crew



## hooting_owl (Sep 3, 2008)

Ah, the poor loves. £52K a year plus perks just isn't enough for some of them.

Perhaps they have been out of the country, sunning their fat asses on a beach in barbados? meanwhile, the rest of us have been scraping by, taking pay cuts and generally working our guts out to keep the wolf from the door. this is timed deliberately to inflict pain on the general public.

ba is in a bad way and is losing money at a rate. the airline industry is in crisis, yet these greedy little shits (already the best-paid in the industry) want more more more. so they are going to fuck-up the holiday period for the rest of the population who have no doubt had a really shit year and were looking forward to getting away this christmas.

my message to the the 80% of ba cabin crew who voted to strike is this. fucking resign if you don't like what is on offer. your skills are in great demand - burger king will take you on. i doubt if there is a single person in the country who has any sympathy for you and what you are asking for. i sincerely hope that you all lose your jobs and find out what the real world is like these days.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

£52K and show people where the emergency exits are in the event of the plane disintegrating on impact? SIGN ME UP!! :lol:


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

IMO the devastation not only to peoples holidays but also the company which employs them, could result in BA going into administration. The new owners can then sort the problem out once and for all by only rehiring the "trolley dollys" who will accept realistic working practices.

Some years back I flew to Jo'burg on a Monday night (KLM rather than BA) with the same crew as I flew back with on the Friday night. I had done 4 days work whilst they had been lounging round the pool and been on a day trip to the Kruger National Park.


----------



## allthewayfromspain (Sep 17, 2008)

ScoobyTT said:


> £52K and show people where the emergency exits are in the event of the plane disintegrating on impact? SIGN ME UP!! :lol:


£52k for cabin crew? Doubt it very much. Not even with flight pay included. Half that for a purser with a few years of service. Same as Quantas, Virgin etc. My brother is a pilot and tells me they start (Cabin crew) at £12k + flight pay so may get 15-16 gross in a good year. Pursers arre on 18-20 + flight pay.

Where did 52k come from?

But yes they dont do much. Hours are shi..rubbish. Availability 365 days a year, 24 hrs a day. Stand-by's. Bad skin from the altitude.

Rubbish. But they should be greatful for work right now. Bet there would be a massive queue if BA wanted to recruit now.


----------



## SAJ77 (Nov 16, 2008)

allthewayfromspain said:


> [£52k for cabin crew? Doubt it very much. Not even with flight pay included. Half that for a purser with a few years of service. Same as Quantas, Virgin etc. My brother is a pilot and tells me they start (Cabin crew) at £12k + flight pay so may get 15-16 gross in a good year. Pursers arre on 18-20 + flight pay.
> 
> Where did 52k come from?


I was thinking the same. They surely cant be on 52k or anything like that!!

Also, I can never understand why 'cabin crew / air stewardess' is classed as a glamorous job :?

Saj


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Guys, what you are reading in the newspapers and hearing on the news is a long way from the truth. No cabin crew member earns £50k+ 

My wife has worked for the airlines for 23 years in January - first for British Caledonian then for BA after they took BCal over. She is a Purser working out of Heathrow on long haul and gets approx £30k per annum.

What the newspapers won't tell you is that Willie Walsh has long been trying to impose new employment contracts, terms and conditions for BA crew - disregarding completely the legally binding contracts entered into voluntarily by BA. He has already reduced the number of crew on long haul aircraft, imposed worthless 11 month contracts of employment on all newcomers to the airline and greatly reduced allowances and rest periods for all crew on duty to dangerously low levels.

Now he wants to cut costs further by reducing stop-over time and asking for further reductions in crew on certain long haul routes. Already my wife flies routes with a night stop only. So she flies to say Vancouver - a 12/13 hour flight and then returns on another 12/13 hour flight the following day. Not only that, she has to be at the airport for briefing at least three hours before take-off and also has a good two hours tacked on the end of each journey before going off duty.

On the return leg and after being on her feet for two 12/13 hour flights, she then has to make a two hour drive home.

Now how tired and jet-lagged would you feel after that flight as a passenger? Imagine having to do the same thing a day or two later to Singapore and back. Do you think you could cope? On a full-time basis?

Yes it is true that crew enjoy a day off in many destinations. Why shouldn't they spend it how they wish? Most spend it sleeping but yes, others will go sight seeing. If you were abroad then I'm sure you'd do the same.

Sorry guys, but the real problem here is one of mis-management. Make no mistake it is not BA that is in financial crisis but a discredited executive team that doesn't know which way to turn. Of course the blame must lie at the top. It was Willie Walsh who started the whole ball rolling using the same template he wielded while decimating Aer Lingus - Ireland's national airline. He does not care one iota about BA's future, he knows he will not be part of it, instead he lives for today and every decision is about cutting costs now and to hell with what the company will look like in 5 years time. He will get paid off handsomely regardless of what he does.

Already he receives a £700k+ salary. This for the man that caused the airline to be fined £271m for price fixing following fuel surcharges and the same one that disastrously opened terminal 5 way before it was actually ready to be opened. He is believed to have got a very large bonus (£700k) for that but never let it be suggested that the extra pay might have motivated his ill-decision to launch T5 when he did.

Willie Walsh has also employed two ex-Royal Mail executives - Tony McCarthy and James Ferran to front his industrial relations team - both of whom have left a legacy of discontent and poor profitability at the Royal Mail having just made a £400m loss. Neither of these men has set foot on a BA aircraft in 12 months so are utterly clueless about what made BA the 'world's favourite airline' before they allowed the axes to fall.

And what of Willie Walsh's negotiating skills. He is reported to act like a petulant child at board meetings - simply pushing away all paperwork and stomping out of meetings if he disagrees with anyone. This is no way to negotiate.

Meanwhile, on board, cabin service routines are now being reduced to pathetic levels, catering is in decline, the aircraft are falling apart, there is no back up or credible management structure to sort out the mess and wherever you are in the world no one cares about BA anymore. They are fast becoming a skeleton airline, running on a shoestring budget, governed by a second string management.

The passengers are not mugs - they will not be fooled by glib advertising and empty words. They know that cabin crew (who more often than not are the reason they choose to fly BA) are being undermined and being deprived of the essential tools that help make their journeys that much more pleasurable. They don't want a Ryanair type experience when they clamber on a British Airways jet but if Walsh, McCarthy and Ferran have their way that is precisely what they will get.

There will be no going back.

cheers

rich


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

thank goodness rusty,, i am glad that someone can come on with the facts of the situation !!!!! too many people on here seem to get their information from the daily rags such as the Sun and the Star or at best ( !!!!!!!!!!! ???? ) Daily Mail,, i had at least the sense to check the wage rates of the average trolly dolly ( no dis to Lou !! :wink: , ) and i could see it was no where near the hysterical sums mentioned by the easily led in previous posts.....


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Rich, does your other half think that by ruining Christmas for many tens or hundreds of thousands of people, there will be public goodwill towards the cause?

In a BBC interview this morning with a steward/stewardess, I got the impression that the vote was not to have 12 days of disruption for Christmas but to hold strikes, to make BA management review their proposals for restructuring.

What I fear here is bully boy tactics by militant union chiefs. If this action leads to job losses because BA cant sustain losses caused by this sort of strike action, then it will be the likes of your other half who will suffer, not the fat union chief who will still be sat in TUC HQ drawing his salary.

As I see it, the like result is that people will think twice about booking BA much preferring the idea of flying with alternative airlines.

_(Rich I single your other half out but the question is meant in a general sense)_


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

public good will does not win , nor loose in union actions,, but the strike action will bring the topic and the facts, into view for all to see, with the exception of those who are fundimentally anti union and are not interested in them, ( there are none so blind as those who will not see !! ) for those who really want to find them and not just use the issue as another weapon to bash the trade unions with !!!!


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

mighTy Tee said:


> _(Rich I single your other half out but the question is meant in a general sense)_


Richard, I think BA are winning the PR war at the moment, but then they have professionals at their disposal.

This post was on a BA crew forum and I think sums up the crew point of view quite nicely...

*"This is not a strike that crew have ever wanted. This is a strike, that they
have been forced into, by an uncompromising leadership, under the helm of Willie
Walsh. He came from Aer Lingus, where his drastic cost cutting has virtually
destroyed their airline, and he's trying to do the same at ours. He is hell bent
on destroying our union, as he did with Aer Lingus post 9/11, so he can steam
roll through permanent changes, without any opposition, which we will have to
adhere too forever and not just a few years of recession.

Cabin crew are caring, committed, non militant people. At BA, we view our job as
a career and a vocation, and not just a 2 year holiday job. We are generally
very good at what we do, and are trained in numerous fields. We have ex-nurses,
lawyers, headmasters, police, army, etc, who have been crew for many years.
Many of us have come from other airlines too, because BA was viewed as the top
employer in the industry. We are paid a fair renumeration for the shift work
that we do, which is on a par with other European airlines. Some of the
disparities quoted in the media are both wrong and misleading.

Without doubt, the airline industry is going through tough times, We as crew
realise this better than anyone. As such we have offered huge cost savings, to
ride through the bad times. What we don't want is to permanently eradicate our
terms and conditions and promotion opportunities, and accept huge cuts in real
term pay that will be with us for life, and will ultimately make our jobs unviable.

We have already adopted many changes, but these have been negotiated, and not
imposed. This is the right way. Imposition is morally wrong, and will basically
give the management a free hand to do what ever they want in the future.
Negotiation is the only way forward. Imposition is why we are threatening to strike. This is about our future.

But it's the future wish list of the ruthless management ( we have seen the
leaked documents!!) that really scares us. It is almost guaranteed whether at
LGW or LHR, that crew will be close to the minimum wage within 2 years, working
far harder, with minimum rest, with no stability of working rotas / days off.
Not a pleasant thought, especially for those with kids. But hey, who are we to
negotiate? Management know best! Just throw your career down the tube, so the fat
cats can swan off to another company with a big bonus, and milk that too.

Unite is only trying to protect it's members. Personally, I'm already looking
for a new job, BA has become a horrible place to work. Crew moral is so low,
it's soul destroying. I've already found 3 jobs that pay better than now
(£22000), with no sleep deprivation, weekends and xmas off, reduced risks of
cancer, nights in your own bed, and a life.

Good luck crew, you will need it. Good luck passengers too, we're sorry but
welcome to our world. We have had to deal with an unethical management for too
long. You are going to have Ryanisation for life.

Why strike now?
Because BA have imposed the first of their changes on 16th Nov. This was Unites
first opportunity to ballot their members. We have been angry for months, but
powerless, but now BA has implemented changes, we have a legal right to oppose
them.

Why Christmas?
Because it has to be within a legal time frame. It has to have a huge impact,
for management to listen. Remember this is a threat, to get management to listen
and negotiate, rather than impose. It could be argued that Walsh has played a
game here, he knew full well that crew would ballot after 16th Nov ( inevitable
strike threat Christmas period). Why did he choose these dates? Because he's
relying on the fact that crew would not be selfish enough to strike at
Christmas, and that the negative backlash from the public would deter them
further.

Our hands are tied, It's another typical BA game. We are damned if we do, and
damned if we don't.

REMEMBER THIS STRIKE IT NOT ABOUT PAY, WE ARE ASKING FOR NOTHING, WE HAVE EVEN
OFFERED A PAY CUT. JUST LET US HAVE A SAY IN OUR FUTURE. DON'T FORCE CHANGES."*

I hope that presents a fair point of view from the crew side. It seems to me they're pretty poorly represented as far as the media are concerned.

Cheers

rich


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

That sounds like a good appraisal rustyintegrale. It's a shame the media aren't truly "balanced" really.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> That sounds like a good appraisal rustyintegrale. It's a shame the media aren't truly "balanced" really.


Thank you sir. 

It's not a great situation and crew face disciplinary action for speaking out. That's why any crew member you see interviewed is nameless and in the shadows.

Plus of course I support my wife who is the last person who'd normally agree to a strike at anytime, never mind Christmas. :wink:

Cheers

rich


----------



## Gone (May 5, 2009)

Cheers for putting the facts up from the crew's point of view, Rich. You changed my opinion so good on you!

I hadn't dug too deeply into the details as I have a fair bit on right now and current affairs has taken a back seat but I had jumped to conclusions. I don't generallt have much sympathy with workers striking over pay particularly when everyone else is taking pay freezes but as you point out it's not about pay. As for people using the Sun and Mail for their info... twats? Even the BBC take sensational lines on everything these days.

Mind you I still say anyone who tries to fly anywhere at Christmas is an idiot and deserves all the hassle they get, strikes or not. It's a daft time to fly. Have they not seen Home Alone?!


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

badyaker said:


> Cheers for putting the facts up from the crew's point of view, Rich. You changed my opinion so good on you!


Okay as it's Christmas and we're on the subject, did you all know...

If a crew member lands at London before midday on Christmas morning (perhaps having been working for up to 18 hours) it is not considered by BA that they have 'worked Christmas' despite many of them having many hours to drive home or unable to get home if they live abroad (as many do).

On any other day of the year this would be classed as a 'working' day but not Christmas. There is no extra financial remuneration for this either, nor indeed is there any extra payment for Bank holidays or weekends and no day off in lieu either.

I often don't see my wife at weekends at all!  So life isn't that good sometimes!

Cheers

rich


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Regardless of whether it is Big Willie to blame, or "Greedy Cabin Crew", the single, immutable fact remains that the actions of both management and unions combined, under the guise of BA as a company, have committed PR suicide.

Whether it is Willie Walsh's underhand management tactics, or the guaranteed disruption of a Christmas strike MAKES NOT ONE JOT OF DIFFERENCE to Joe Public who either face ther Christmas travel plans being disrupted, or are just idle bystanders in tune with current affairs.

It doesn't really matter who has engineered this position - it will be a LONG time before a lot of people put their trust in BA again.

As an outsider, it seems like each is calling the other's bluff in a game of corporate "chicken", each upping the ante and hoping the other will back down. As neither seem likely to, the end result will be a ruined Christmas for 1m passengers, and a bankrupt airline.


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

The Armed Forces dont get paid extra for working over Christmas and many of them are not home for the week end
just to put in to perspective, a young man with far too much aftershave on moaning about working too hard perhaps
needs a little tour of hard work, sorry Rich but a lot of them don't exactly do a lot and on long haul they at some point have a kip


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

robokn said:


> The Armed Forces dont get paid extra for working over Christmas and many of them are not home for the week end
> just to put in to perspective, a young man with far too much aftershave on moaning about working too hard perhaps
> needs a little tour of hard work, sorry Rich but a lot of them don't exactly do a lot and on long haul they at some point have a kip


Rob, I think you're misunderstanding my point.

All I was trying to illustrate is that it's not all about what you see on TV and read in the newspapers. The crews do work unsocial hours and are on their feet for sometimes very long hours. It is true they have bunks where they have rest periods, but why not? An hour's kip can restore not only energy levels but also mood and that benefits the passenger in terms of quality of service. There is no staff canteen or rest area provided, just a few cramped bunks similar to crew quarters in a submarine. Not only that but they often have to skip these breaks if another crew member falls ill, as they are spread so thinly these days.

Please also remember that these people aren't just employed to pour your drinks and serve your food. They also look after your safety, administer first aid in a medical emergency - including heart attacks and serious illnesses, deal with unruly passengers in the manner of a policeman if necessary, cope with fire hazards like a trained fireman and at the same time maintain the calm, dignified and professional face of a national airline at all times. These guys are the best trained crew in the business and that is why they are so revered by regular air travellers who chose BA purely for the crew experience.

To maintain these high standards each crew member must undergo yearly exams and supplementary training by the Met., fire services and medical specialists. A fail means you are grounded until you can prove fitness to fly. It's as simple as that.

Rob, I understand your tongue-in-cheek comparison to life in the army but these people didn't sign up for the army. It's a bit like suggesting that soldiers should expect to risk their lives as part of their job and stop moaning about the crappy equipment they get. That is an unreasonable and unfair statement for anyone to make and a soldier would rightfully get pissed off about it.

I hope that makes things a little clearer.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

The unfortunte point is, with the recession on, the number of passengers who are actually willing to pay for that level of service (or who have a company expense policy which does) has vastly reduced.

Nobody doubts what BA stands for, or, indeed, what it could stand for in 2 or 3 years' time when corporate spending goes back up again. However, in the meantime, it is haemorrhaging money to the tune of £1.6m per day, if the media is to be believed.

These sorts of losses are unsustainable. One could argue that, if BA management were trying to line the pockets of the execs and shareholders, and were riding roughshod over the staff to do so, the measures being taken would have absolutely no justification. However, with the current state of the airline industry, and BA in particular, there is at least a small chance that these changes are vital to the short term future of the company, let alone its long term viability.

Either way, a strike will be fatal. Public support for strikes is not easy to come by, these days. Whether this is a function of the media or not, ultimately makes no difference.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

FWIW, soldiers should have a right to complain about the equipment they have, but they really *should *expect to risk their lives as part of their job.

They get issued with a deadly weapon and are supposed to point it at other, similarly armed people, who also plant roadside bombs designed to kill.

If, somehow, this isn't somehow considered a potentially hazardous and occasionally fatal occupation, I don't know what is!


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

jampott said:


> FWIW, soldiers should have a right to complain about the equipment they have, but they really *should *expect to risk their lives as part of their job.
> 
> They get issued with a deadly weapon and are supposed to point it at other, similarly armed people, who also plant roadside bombs designed to kill.
> 
> If, somehow, this isn't somehow considered a potentially hazardous and occasionally fatal occupation, I don't know what is!


I agree. I absolutely think they have a right to complain about the equipment. I also think they have a right to expect that their welfare will be of utmost importance in any combat arena no matter what it costs. Unfortunately it will never be given priority because of the nature of warfare, but that's something every soldier understands right?

Cheers

rich


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

rustyintegrale said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW, soldiers should have a right to complain about the equipment they have, but they really *should *expect to risk their lives as part of their job.
> ...


welfare being of utmost importance =/= not risking one's life

There's a difference between your life being at risk, and your life being at risk unnecessarily. Sometimes that difference is very slight, though...

Humanity teaches us to respect each and every life - yet history tells us that, on occasion, blood needs to be spilled in order to advance the greater good. It is a dreadful position to try and balance those things out.

Will we look back and think it was worth it? We certainly do for WWI and WWII - but I'm not sure that the Falklands, Gulf War(s) and Afghan campaigns will ever be viewed in the same way, despite just finding oil in the Falklands... 

I think we've lost 102 soliders in Afghanistan so far in 2009. Pitifully few compared to WWI and WWII - so are we so angry about it because we feel their deaths serve no purpose?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

jampott said:


> I think we've lost 102 soliders in Afghanistan so far in 2009. Pitifully few compared to WWI and WWII - so are we so angry about it because we feel their deaths serve no purpose?


Or don't fully understand why they're out there. Yeah we know about the Taliban but they're not all bad are they?

I have no real idea to be honest...


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

jampott said:


> Either way, a strike will be fatal. Public support for strikes is not easy to come by, these days. Whether this is a function of the media or not, ultimately makes no difference.


I couldn't agree more.

So why do you think Willie Walsh wouldn't even look at a proposal by the union (that is acceptable to the crew) for the cost savings he seeks?

Cheers

rich


----------



## Matchu (Jul 19, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Either way, a strike will be fatal. Public support for strikes is not easy to come by, these days. Whether this is a function of the media or not, ultimately makes no difference.
> ...


Why do you think he would'nt look at a counter proposal which delivers the savings ??? As that would make no sense assuming that it is a workable solution...that also fits into the operational dynamics and fits the strategy of the business going forward...


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Matchu said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


No mate. It's simple.

He has no respect for his staff. He has no respect for the union. He wants to break the union so he can then impose more changes with no consideration at all for the staff that have to work his proposals.

Cheers

rich


----------



## Matchu (Jul 19, 2009)

Do you think he is doing what he thinks needs to be done given that he will have more information at his disposal on the plight of the company and the strategy that the business is looking to take going forward? And that without imposing the changes now that the company will go bust and all the jobs will be lost?

Not trying to be argumentative...honest...just seeing what you think


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Matchu said:


> Do you think he is doing what he thinks needs to be done given that he will have more information at his disposal on the plight of the company and the strategy that the business is looking to take going forward? And that without imposing the changes now that the company will go bust and all the jobs will be lost?
> 
> Not trying to be argumentative...honest...just seeing what you think


Well if he has more information why the hell is he not sharing it with those that have been there longer and know the customer-facing business better than him?

Why has he refused a union proposal without even reading it?

Why does he quote inaccurate salary figures for crew if not to gain public sympathy?

Why does he employ ex Royal Mail negotiators already proven to be incapable at negotiation?

Why do you think he never flies British Airways?

Why was he present at a New York crew hotel prior to the vote other than to bully tired crew into listening to his case?

And finally.

What did he do to Aer Lingus that has benefitted that airline?

Cheers

rich


----------



## Matchu (Jul 19, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> Matchu said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think he is doing what he thinks needs to be done given that he will have more information at his disposal on the plight of the company and the strategy that the business is looking to take going forward? And that without imposing the changes now that the company will go bust and all the jobs will be lost?
> ...


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

In my mind who ever is right or wrong in this dispute any passenger who have their holiday plans destroyed or have to cancel will not look to fly BA in the near future as a protest. Bankruptcy is possible, but most certainly job losses due to falling revenues, and passenger numbers in the next six months. It will be sad demise for a once great company .  
Come on get together and sort it out :wink:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Hilly10 said:


> Come on get together and sort it out :wink:


I honestly believe this is 100% of the crew want.

These are not militant people, they're not out to make the public suffer and in truth they don't want to suffer the possible consequences of a bankrupt airline either. The truth of the matter is that Willie Walsh has an agenda for change and he wants to impose those changes rather than negotiate them which would be the fair and reasonable thing to do. Everyone understands that there is a recession and that air travel revenues are down as a result - nobody is blind to those facts.

But he has already made such impositions and those decisions are already impacting upon the flights operating under them and in the long-term the passengers will suffer as a result. The quality of customer service WILL fall and it is service that made British Airways head and shoulders above the rest in the first place. Willie Walsh expects to deliver cost savings whilst also expecting the crew to deliver the same service they have always done. But to do that they need management support and the tools and equipment on board to work. At the moment both are lacking and as a result morale is at an all-time low.

Recession or not, that has never been a good foundation for a successful business.

Cheers

rich


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Matchu said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > Matchu said:
> ...


----------



## Bladerider (Dec 2, 2009)

Rich,

Whilst I am sure that there is more to all this than is in the public arena, and having read what you feel is the crew side of the argument it certainly paints a different klight on how all this got to where its at, there still remains a couple of irrefutable points.

Striking with such a severity it will almost certainly destroy the company that employs those that are striking is totally counter productive, and if the unions and crew just want to highlight the issues and do the best for passengers and themselves then this makes no sense. It seems entirely like the union is trying to prove its strength at the cost of the National Airline so it can show if it take out the biggest player in the game then no one else will dare to take them on in future.

The arguments about a soldier risking his life, a cabin crew having 2hours to drive home, and summer following winter are all irrelevent as these are all facts of life everyone knows about beforehand. So saying your wife has to drive home after work is the same as anyone else, its just that she lives further away by choice and I suspect you never know which airport you are flying to or from to an extent. And I dont for one second believe that she is on her feet for 13 hours, longhaul staff share duties and have breaks the same as any other customer facing job. The fact that she's 30000ft up in the air is the only physical difference to a shelf stacker at Tescos who may work just as many hours.

I really dont see the argument that a Cabin Crew is a super hard and tiring job that isnt fairly paid. It looks totally fair from your own descriptions and frankly I think its disgusting that they feel entitled to destroy the second largest holiday period for people who have worked just as hard and wanted to do something special at christmas. I hope that when you and your wife go on holiday that some militant frenchies or wherever you are block whichever travel route you have planned and then you reap what you sow. A good friend of mine has his whole family due to fly out over christmas and this has effectively just wiped him out financially as he's having to suddenly spend a load of money in this country for Xmas in case the strikes go ahead which was meant to be their spending money, so if they do go abroad they wuill not have any cash for their holdiay !! So he's buggered either way. as the only other alternative is to sit at home until xmas, see if they strike and if they do then he's got nothing here for them instead.

Fantastic !!

J.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

obviously you people have never been on strike !!!! very very few people ever want to go on strike , apart from getting unjust flak from illinformed public / persons affected, there is a large financial loss incured and despite what ever benefits can be gained from the action this is very rarelly recovered.... i am not involved in any way in this action , but i would like to think , as having been involved in strike action many times, and been afected by others actions, that i would put the careers and even shorter term jobs and employmant conditions before my own 7 days lying in the sun or other selfish intent.. 
i have noticed the total lack of comment or reaction to the gross exploitation of the "suffering " public by the other air lines doubling , or worse, the fares on the popular routes being affected by the BA action,, so its alright for the likes of Virgin, incidentally one of the worst payers of their cabin crew, etc to exploit the public but it is not ok for people to fight for their rights !!!!,,,yea i can see where most of you are coming from !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :? :? :? 
UP THE WORKERS !!!!!


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Bladerider said:


> I think its disgusting that they feel entitled to destroy the second largest holiday period for people who have worked just as hard and wanted to do something special at christmas.


*For the umpteenth time they don't want to strike or upset anybody's holiday arrangements.* Just forgetting for one minute that this dispute has been in the background for months, why do you lay the blame solely at the feet of cabin crew? This is a two-sided battle and BA management are as much to blame for this threatened strike action as anyone else.

Just to clarify, the Union has taken on board the need for cutbacks in the face of a serious downturn in air travel. They have asked BA management to listen to their own proposals for making the required cost savings but Willie Walsh has refused to even entertain the idea that there might be an alternative solution to the problem.

In contrast Walsh is intent on making changes without any consultation. He intends to bulldoze the Union in the process thereby clearing the way to impose yet more swathing cuts unchallenged. We have not seen the worst of these yet.

He also claims the vote to strike was illegal because the ballot included those who had accepted redundancy. This is also far short of the truth. The ballot papers were issued BEFORE those volunteering for redundancy were even notified what their severance package might be. So although there were those volunteering in principle to leave the job, their decision was not final at the time of completing and sending off the ballot paper. Obviously nobody would accept redundancy without knowing what they would get in compensation and thus could still remain as employees.

Apparently, the Union subsequently asked for details of those who had then confirmed their acceptance of redundancy so that the ballot papers could be removed from the count. This information was refused.

Regarding the timing of the strike. This is largely dictated by the legal requirements for cooling off and notice periods. You could well argue that Willie Walsh and his cohorts were well aware of this when imposing the changes they made in November. They were relying on the fact that generally non-confrontational crew would not go ahead with strike plans falling as it would just before Christmas. The result of that risk is what we see now.

Like 99% of the population and 99% of the crew, I too would like to see a quick and effective end to the threat of strike. Nobody wishes to impact on others' Christmas celebrations, but instead of just attacking the employees trying to provide a proper service maybe you should take a swipe at the employer trying to cut costs and standards by imposition and precious little consultation.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## skiwhiz (Feb 17, 2008)

"These guys are the best trained crew in the business and that is why they are so revered by regular air travellers who chose BA purely for the crew experience."

Rich I am not so sure passengers would agree with this, I have experienced good and bad and would say its a 50-50 chance of getting a good crew in the back of the plane. Some BA staff are so up themselves its down right rudeness and in MHO part of the reason they are in the mess thay are.
Its such a shame as in the 90's they were one of the best and that meant something, now they all strive to be a Ryanair. 
Wrongs on both sides I guess and as in all stikes its joe public who are the biggest losers, the Leeds binmen strike being a classic example which like this one is a return to the days of Maggie and confrontation, lets hope common sense prevails but somehow I think that is more a pipe dream.


----------



## Matchu (Jul 19, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> He also claims the vote to strike was illegal because the ballot included those who had accepted redundancy.


The High Court agree with him....therefore it is a FACT that the vote was illegal not a claim...

And to keep the facts rolling...BA staff are paid an average of £29,900 p.a. which is 48% more than the next highest paid crew, which is Easyjet (Source: CAA - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8413529.stm page two of the graphical display near the bottom).

I'm sorry but in this day and age I cannot agree that given the facts above and the changes proposed by management...I just cannot see how a strike can be justified. It looks more like the the Union is trying to break the company....

Anyway...the strike is off....but the damage done to the company is HUGE as any potential passengers will know a strike could be coming soon anyway....


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Matchu said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > He also claims the vote to strike was illegal because the ballot included those who had accepted redundancy.
> ...


Well let's hope both the Union and the management take note and get their arses around the negotiating table to sort this sensibly. That can be the only productive option surely.

Regarding salaries, it doesn't matter if the average salary is £10k or £100k, a contract of employment is just that and is legally binding for both parties. But comparing EasyJet to BA is like comparing a corporation bus to a taxi.

As far as the comments about crew rudeness, well I guess there are bad apples in any organisation. The most junior and recently trained (and quite possibly those on the new contracts) are generally down the back in Economy. Maybe the standards are indicative of what's to come - I just don't know. My recommendation to anyone who feels aggrieved by the service from a crew member is simply to ask to speak to the cabin Purser. If that fails then ask for the Cabin Services Director and get it dealt with by them. That is what they are there for.

Speaking for my wife, I can only say that she often receives commendation from passengers and indeed has twice received a letter of thanks from Willie Walsh himself. But then she was trained by British Caledonian...

Cheers

rich


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Interesting thread and good to hear both sides, including the "insider" view - thanks Rich.
As has been said though, the "who's right, who's wrong" debate becomes a bit academic if it leads to the potential demise of the company.



skiwhiz said:


> "These guys are the best trained crew in the business and that is why they are so revered by regular air travellers who chose BA purely for the crew experience."


To me, irrespective of this particular situation, this pretty much sums up what I think has been BA's problem recently. They seem to have been riding on reputation and a strong position in terms of routes/slots at Heathrow.

I have no particular bad will against them, but I travel a lot these days with work, on a whole bunch of different airlines depending where I'm going. And the fact is that BA just are _not _one of the best out there any more. Not one of the worst either, but just one of a middling ones - in my experience playing catch-up with airlines like (just one example) Emirates and such like, who tend to have a newer fleet with better on-board facilities. (And, as far as I've experienced, equally pleasant and efficient staff, better/equally good food etc).

I still know people who would choose BA, but this is generally people who only travel occasionally, remember them being great in the past and have tended to just stick with them. But once people do start flying with other airlines, the mystique pretty quickly evaporates.

Good/bad airlines is very subjective I know, but just my 2p.

Hope it resolves itself anyway - both for the passengers and for the jobs and so on that could do with being preserved.


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

drjam said:


> I have no particular bad will against them, but I travel a lot these days with work, on a whole bunch of different airlines depending where I'm going. And the fact is that BA just are _not _one of the best out there any more. Not one of the worst either, but just one of a middling ones - in my experience playing catch-up with airlines like (just one example) Emirates and such like, who tend to have a newer fleet with better on-board facilities. (And, as far as I've experienced, equally pleasant and efficient staff, better/equally good food etc).
> 
> Good/bad airlines is very subjective I know, but just my 2p.


In a similar situation and have to agree, in the late 90's I flew with BA religiously and now don't care if I do or don't, there are so many others doing it better and equally as well. It's a real shame because I used to look forward to getting on that BA plane especially on the way home, just felt like I was already home. BA need a radical shape up they are no longer the innovators just the followers which is typical of large arrogant companies we come across these days such as the banks and look what happened to them. Sorry, but my experience of BA cabin crew and other airlines including Virgin (I fly with Virgin at least once a month) is that at times they just don't care and treat passengers as an inconvenience. It is also very poor to hear cabin crew moaning about management on a flight, this I have witnessed many times. This isn't a moan about crew it is about the company because how the staff behave is the responsibility of management.

I am sure there are arguments on both sides because examples of poor cabin crew and mismanagement at BA are easy to come by, but if all parties don't sort this out between them and not include the press etc etc that will be the end. Then the staff, the management and the customers will all lose. Virgin are already e-mailing and tweeting extra planes and capacity over Christmas, so how many of those potential customers have already switched even without the strike?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

drjam said:


> Interesting thread and good to hear both sides, including the "insider" view - thanks Rich.
> As has been said though, the "who's right, who's wrong" debate becomes a bit academic if it leads to the potential demise of the company.
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for that. As you say, other airlines are matching and beating BA in terms of customer care and service. That in itself is an indication of what Walsh's blinkered policy is doing and points irrevocably to what else he has in store for BA and its passengers.

So the question is, do BA and their staff allow the airline to degenerate from a premium carrier to a cattle carrier now or do they adjust to market conditions with a pre-conceived agreement to restore premium service when market conditions allow?

The pilots have already agreed a 'give now, take share options later' deal when things improve. That's how little Willie has secured the services of his most vital staff. Next in line surely has to be the customer-facing crew who are the public face of BA and make or break the customer experience? They have no such offer, they are being asked to take a bigger percentage reduction in salary than the pilots and at the same time have their working conditions changed by imposition - in other words by force.

Is that the style of a man with the airline's core interests at heart or is it one with a 'cash pot and pension' to claim when he's crushed all opposition to his plans and ruined what was 'the world's favourite airline' forever?

Cheers

Rich


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Hi Guys,

This is from the Guardian - not my choice of newspaper but nevertheless a well thought out article...

*It comes as little surprise that BA's cabin crew staff have voted this week to go on strike over Christmas and the New Year. Faced with a two-year pay freeze, reduced staff on long-haul flights and worries that bosses want to recruit new employees on worse pay and conditions, and phase out the old workforce, it is no wonder that eight in 10 union members voted - and that 92.5% of those voted to strike.
The hostility of many newspapers and politicians is similarly unsurprising.

Massive disruption to BA flights in one of the busiest holiday periods of the year, when many travellers are hoping to see family and loved ones, is never going to be popular with the public. Hundreds of flights will be cancelled and up to 900,000 customers could be affected.

No wonder BA yesterday began legal proceedings against Unite in an attempt to block the strike. No wonder the shadow transport secretary, Theresa Villiers, duly rushed out to condemn the industrial action and warn that "the union needs to wake up to the realities of the 21st century aviation industry". Minus the words "21st century aviation", that is the advice the Tories would give to any union ever. For its part, the Times trotted out the usual witless line about how strikes are such bad form and quoted a 1992 academic study showing that industrial action in the 1980s produced wage rises so small as to be invisible to the naked eye.

Never mind that the same study pointed out that "shorter strikes are more likely to be worthwhile" for workers. When it comes to industrial action, the academic consensus is pleasingly commonsensical: strikes tend to yield better results for workers when they have plenty of other jobs to go to. That was certainly not the case in Margaret Thatcher's era of 3 million on the dole; sadly, neither is it the case in the middle of the present slump.

But the key point to consider is the counterfactual one: how much worse would things be for those 80s strikers or the BA staff now if they did not take (or threaten to take) industrial action? That question takes in all sorts of imponderables: the probability of the strike (or strike threat) achieving its aim; the possibility of ministers intervening; the chances that Willie Walsh and his management team at BA will negotiate a little more, and impose a little less.

That is the calculation BA workers made this week, and it is one they will surely keep reconsidering as the strike date approaches.

To treat them as mindless company-wreckers is to ignore the evident pride many staffers have in working for what is the de facto national-flag carrier - one which, even in its current reduced circumstances, retains those old associations of being "the world's favourite airline". BA cabin crew are quite right to fight to protect their conditions, which are under serious threat. That was the case even before the recession; the aviation industry has expanded rapidly over the past few years and working conditions on many new budget carriers are, frankly, poor. This is a classic race to the bottom, and few workers win those.

None of this is to diminish the risk BA workers are taking in threatening industrial action - to their own livelihoods. Their employer racked up a £401m loss last year; it has a stonking great pension deficit, and is grounding planes and slashing costs. Cancelling what should be a lucrative Christmas will only make a dismal situation worse.

That said, the way Willie Walsh has handled this dispute will end up in the MBA textbooks - as how not to do it. Just over two years ago, the BA boss hailed a new era in its often-troubled industrial relations. Now the atmosphere between management and workforce has become more poisonous than ever. Both sides risk sleepwalking into a strike that neither really wants. They should be forced - by government if necessary - to negotiate with each other. Carelessness is no excuse for destroying a business.*

Cheers

rich


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

And this is precisely why I dislike living in the UK...

This is from a BA forum and indicative of the type of passenger nobody would want to deal with...

*There is a sweet irony in the weather forecast this evening...a flurry of snow and there will be mass disruption at LHR tomorrow. How long will it take before the ESS message asking for your help at this difficult time to get passengers where they want to be in time for Christmas.

Well they can all F..... off. We walked through the airport last night and were hissed at and heckled by our passengers....followed by a slow clap from from those passengers sitting next to the gate. Some swore at us as we boarded, some chose not to even acknowledge us as we stood at the door....

The company have shown how little they think of us and we should NEVER forget this. If they call for our help over the next few days, SAY NO.
All goodwill is gone....all respect is gone....and unless WW is ousted, things will never get back to a respectful working environment again.

I am bitterly disappointed, totally disillusioned and humiliated by a company I was once so very proud to work for.*

What a way to be treated. There is no excuse.

Cheers

rich


----------



## scottishloveknot (Feb 8, 2009)

i can see there side of the argument but striking over xmas and newyear is wrong people have made plans to see loved ones on the otherside of the world etc time to ditch ba i think and fly with klm by far a better airline these days!!


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

i think if you look back throo Rich's posts you will see that the timing has been set by the demonic walsh and that the strikers have no choice but strike at this time,, as often the case and only recognised by those in the inside , or with the intelegence and interest to dig deeper and find the real facts regarding union / managment strife..i bet most of those horrors geering the staff at heathrow wont have the intelegence or interest to find out the facts , but go with the miss information peddled by the daily rags and tv media news !!!!


----------



## scottishloveknot (Feb 8, 2009)

yeah but every1 had a vote did they not and the majority voted to strike??


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

yes they did,, but a majority is not good enough for some of the countrys judges !!!!


----------



## scottishloveknot (Feb 8, 2009)

i just thought striking at xmas was wrong way to go about it thats all mate and unions for many years hav been the cause of many companys shutin down goin bust etc im all for power to the people but if you aint happy with your company u look for another job dont u??


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

If we're talking "successful industrial action"...

Just how much good did the miners do for their job prospects?

NUM < Thatcher.

The Guarniad tries to point out that things would have been worse if no action had taken place. Really? How, in the name of jeeping fuck, could it have got any worse? Not only did it not help the coal industry, it completely undermind the entire role of the union. Not just the NUM, but unions in general.

Awesome.


----------



## Bladerider (Dec 2, 2009)

Sorry Rich,

I realise you are only sticking up for your missus and I would do the same,

But Im afraid that all the protestations and accusations in the world wont make the recent debacle by Unite any more reasonable in my eyes.

Williw Walsh might be the next worst thing to Satan himself, and he might have a plan a mile long, but the plain facts are that the airlines are all chasing a reduced market, BA has bounced from pillar to post in recent years and is in a very much weakened financial position, the recession is doing no one any favours and the rest of the world are taking pay cuts, reduced hours, reduced circumstances and their companies need all the support they can get at the moment. And with this as a background Unite think its a good idea to publicly declare a strike for almost 2 weeks - during the 2nd busiest time of the year when the company stands half a chance of recouping some money back from the poor year they have had.

There is no excuse for this and the terrible damage it will have inflicted even though they have now pulled back from industrial action. The miners never saw the bigger picture, Unite isnt seeing the bigger picture, and Im afraid the cabin crew might want to be the proudest bestest highest flying mofo's in the sky but without a company to pay for the planes they would have been in then its all just pointless.

The phrase you're looking for is cutting your nose off to spite your face, I would be astonished if any of my employees gave me grief for not getting Xmas bonuses this year as we have been making losses for every month since March yet they still have a job and VALUE it !!

J.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Bladerider said:


> I would be astonished if any of my employees gave me grief for not getting Xmas bonuses this year as we have been making losses for every month since March yet they still have a job and VALUE it !!
> 
> J.


I totally agree. Having run a company myself I can see both sides of the coin. But if your employees were to see you still drawing a salary 23 times what they got and then you followed that up with tidy little bonus when they were receiving nothing because of the 'company losses', then I'd have little doubt that you too would have a potential riot on your hands.

'J' (what is your name anyway?), I think we've reached a point in this thread where the 'point of view' from both sides has been exhausted. Yes, you're correct in your assumption that I am 'sticking up for my missus' but that is largely because I am privy to the crew threads on the internet and can read what is going on daily. Had I not been married to crew or not had the advantage of being an insider then maybe I'd be more sympathetic to your side of the argument.

But what IS increasingly clear to me is the power of the media. Over the past few days I have read so much untruth bandied about and THAT is far more damaging than a threat of strike action. The vitriol coming out of the gutter press is both vile and uncalled for. It is designed to whip up hatred and those responsible for publishing it are pretty close to the 'Spitting Image' portrayal of them as braying wolves.

This has resulted in the behaviour witnessed at the airport. A sad indictment of the way some British people seem to enjoy kicking people when they're down.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## Bladerider (Dec 2, 2009)

Sory,

My name is James - I'm so well known on the other forums that I use that I have become lazy when siging iff !!



J.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

eh !! the miners certainly did see what was planed for their industry. that is why they fought back so strongly against Mcgregor and the tory government , abelly assisted by the same gutter press as are spouting untruths on the current actions,,, as did the steel workers against the same Mcgregor who was again claiming to modernise and move forward their industry , and we all know what happened those industries !!!!
this action has been postponed till the new year when, aparently , ucat are going to get involved, negotiation, that is all that was asked for anyway so, it seem that the threat of industrial action has brought walsh to the table. 
the next thing that will happen is, having lost the argument Walsh , again abelly assisted by the tory gutter press will start to personalise the issues with union leaders becomeing open targets for personal deformation . as happens in all major industrial actions....


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Bladerider said:


> Sory,
> 
> My name is James - I'm so well known on the other forums that I use that I have become lazy when siging iff !!
> 
> ...


Not James from JBS by any chance? You seem well known on here too... :wink:

Cheers

rich


----------



## skiwhiz (Feb 17, 2008)

"But what IS increasingly clear to me is the power of the media. Over the past few days I have read so much untruth bandied about and THAT is far more damaging than a threat of strike action. The vitriol coming out of the gutter press is both vile and uncalled for. It is designed to whip up hatred and those responsible for publishing it are pretty close to the 'Spitting Image' portrayal of them as braying wolves."

Rich your not that daft that you did not already know the power of the media, its what they always do, swine flu is another prime example, scare the shit out of the public, bully the government into pointless action then slate them 5 months later for wasting public funds.

coming back to the main point simon calder made a valid point in that the unions would have had more success if they had targeted strikes at the business sector post christmas. That would have hurt BA much more and they may have held the publics support which I am guessing from earlier posts has been lost.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

skiwhiz said:


> coming back to the main point simon calder made a valid point in that the unions would have had more success if they had targeted strikes at the business sector post christmas. That would have hurt BA much more and they may have held the publics support which I am guessing from earlier posts has been lost.


That's because he has a holiday booked and is flying BA... :lol: :lol:

No I'm not that stupid, but it really does serve to illustrate how much fiction there is in the newspapers. With the great unwashed believing that soap operas are 'real life' it doesn't take much to understand just how influential they can be - and how easily Joe Public can be swayed.

Cheers

rich


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

rustyintegrale said:


> skiwhiz said:
> 
> 
> > coming back to the main point simon calder made a valid point in that the unions would have had more success if they had targeted strikes at the business sector post christmas. That would have hurt BA much more and they may have held the publics support which I am guessing from earlier posts has been lost.
> ...


Which, in turn,highlights the stupidity of the union (I will refrain from pointing the finger at the cabin crew, since it would appear that the timing and duration weren't down to them) for not realising how this would be portrayed, and how the media would handle it.

The media being involved (for better or worse) in industrial action is not a new concept. Unite should have known better, and simply crying "foul" isn't good enough!

Whilst BA may deserve better than Willie Walsh, I would also suggest that the hard working cabin crew deserve a LOT better than the lame, naiive idiots who run the unon.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

jampott said:


> Whilst BA may deserve better than Willie Walsh, I would also suggest that the hard working cabin crew deserve a LOT better than the lame, naiive idiots who run the unon.


Hear hear.

The crew are actually represented by BASSA (British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association) but UNITE represent this and other unions.

There has been quite a lot of disquiet about how UNITE are making BASSA look publicly, so I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## Bladerider (Dec 2, 2009)

Im sorry,

Thats going too far, Patsy and Ricky are going through a very hard time with Whitney at the moment and dont need people on here in the so called "real world" making it harder for them !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I dont know what JBS is Im afraid. I have been active on several japanese car forums since 2001-2002 when I bought my R34GTR, and have since gone on to organise and compete in the biggest Drift and Car shows in Europe. Im also very opinionated, passionate about doing and saying the right thing and try hard to moderate myself when on new forums, but occasionally fail a bit :lol:

I do agree that mediation and discussion is the anser to this crisis, but I dont think the cabin crew, the union or any side of this has done themselves any favours. And i certainly dont think that they have any harder job than anyone else all things considered. It just seems there are several unions trying to show how tough they still can be at the moment when it really is the last thing thats needed.

J.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Not a great fan of George Galloway but he really knows how to make a point stick...

Ignore the guy's ramblings at the beginning (nicely shunted along by George)...






Cheers

Rich


----------



## Matchu (Jul 19, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> Not a great fan of George Galloway but he really knows how to make a point stick...
> 
> Ignore the guy's ramblings at the beginning (nicely shunted along by George)...
> 
> ...


Sorry Rich..but that is a load of old crap. Complete Union rubbish....which is 50 years out of date. No business can maintain a cost disadvantage for long...and to think that BA can is utter folly. Businesses like Ryanair have done well due to being highly flexible and being able to undercut the established airlines like BA.

BA has no point of difference or a noticable differentiated strategy.....if the company cannot change..it will cease to exist at some point soon.....Without doubt the management are culpable for this..but the Union are helping to hold the nails as management pick up the hammer...


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Matchu said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > Not a great fan of George Galloway but he really knows how to make a point stick...
> ...


I didn't say I agreed with it did I? :lol:


----------



## Matchu (Jul 19, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> Matchu said:
> 
> 
> > rustyintegrale said:
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

I've just learned that the judge who ruled the BA strike illegal is actually booked on a BA flight on December 23rd.

I wonder if her judgement was at all biased?

Cheers

Rich


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Hi Guys,

Sorry to resurrect this lengthy non-TT related thread, but with the possible threat of strike action by BA crew and the inevitable slating they'll receive from the news media, I thought I would post a copy of a post written on a crew Forum.

This forum has seen unprecedented activity in the past few months, indeed BA management have shut it down on a number of occasions because of some frankly incoherent and damaging exchanges between some elements of crew and BA management.

However this letter goes a long way to reflect how the majority of cabin crew feel about their jobs, the way they're now being regarded and the worthlessness they feel at the hands of BA management. The addressee works for a PR company...

*Dear Mr Ison,

I would like to begin by writing and thanking you! Your previous articles published on the 24/25/27 and 30th of January 2010 offered hope and inspiration to myself and many of my colleagues. We are British Airways cabin crew and your features have been highlighted to us via our crew Forum. Each publication was very positively received because of its sense of forthright, logical and honest presentation. They also came across as pro-crew, not because you were unduly biased, but because your arguments were underpinned by honest evaluation.

For some time now we have felt very misrepresented and maligned in our profession. The majority of the main stream press seem to enjoy taking 'cheap shots' at us during this present time of unrest and quite frankly, sir, it hurts. It is ironic how over 13000 cabin crew (one of the largest workforce groups in the UK) feel bullied and cornered into the 'underdog' position. Though our resolve is steadfast, the arena is not level for us to make a fair stand, especially when so many 'spectators' are tipping the field more and more away from honest reporting.

Misquotations and misrepresentations are rife; encompassing job-descriptions, salaries, conditions, attitudes and more. Your recent articles have dealt with some misnomers such as 'galley shop-keepers', 'flying waiters and waitresses', and militant 'luddites'. Sadly, other less enlightened media are still resorting to entertainment-value stereotypical phrases such as 'trolley dollies' or 'duckies who point to doors for a living' for hyped amusement and ratings. Under other circumstance, crew would be the first to applaud such humour, but these 'comic portrayals' are just thinly veiled unkind jibes meant to cynically belittle us.

I appreciate that with the mention of the word 'strike', popularity ebbs. I think it would be true to say that characteristically most crew are not militant or confrontational. The very nature of our job requires a vocational, altruistic response. We must be dependable and consequently take no pleasure in letting anyone down. Yet we are knife-edged in a dilemma that also requires us to defend our livelihoods and working conditions. There is no one to advocate for us but ourselves and the cost is metamorphosing us into public pariahs.

This alienation has been orchestrated both externally and internally by a super-power dictatory management and their allies. Sadly now within British Airways encouragement seems to be given to ostracise cabin crew from other departments. Divisionary tactics such as 'graffiti walls' where other employees are invited to publicly critique crew are amongst some of the strategies that have been corporately used to intimidate and alienate us in our 'villainous' cause. Recruits from other departments are being temporarily invited to fulfil our roles should strike action ensue. These recruits are being fast-tracked at an alarming rate causing anxious concern amongst crew as to the fulfilment of service and safety standard expectations for passengers, as well as serving to undermine our value as employees.

Yes, we are in dispute with our management. Yes, we need to resolve many issues and find common ground. Yes, we are represented collectively by a union, something obviously unpalatable to our CEO as well as culturally within Britain. None of this should make us the villain though.

I was almost moved to envious tears when I read your article on the 30th January about Waitrose employees. I quote; "loyalty is a value that they have earnt through just doing their job properly". British Airways are perpetually surveying their customers who reflect that of their travel encounter within our airline, they are most satisfied with their experience of cabin crew. We do our job properly. It is a publicised fact. And though we may be in dispute with changes that are being imposed to our contracts (to the point of challenging it in court) one would think that our management would adhere to the same focus of evaluation as our customers.

As you so rightly pointed out in your commentary on the 24th January, within the job role of cabin crew there are differences: From airline to airline, from product to product, from salary to salary, from shorthaul to longhaul, and so on. Whilst other airlines' crew may identify with many of our conditions and circumstances, British Airways crew are unique. Ours is not a short turnover occupation. Crew can fly until they are 65, providing they are fit and able and consequently regard their jobs as careers. Some have served a longevity commitment to British Airways and their salaries reflect this, whilst others who joined more recently have newer contracts. It is merely a question of timing and when one started working for the airline. However, all have contractual rights and perceived the job to be something that could potentially offer a career structure. Indeed, thousands have their mortgages and other financial commitments hinged upon this perception. Now management wish to restructure and introduce a new fleet that will cost less to employ and statistically are expected to be replenished every few years: Economic adaptation. Yet it should not be implemented at the eradication of a loyal workforce whose rights and commitments are already established.

Negotiation to resolve these issues and collectively nurture our future prospects is paramount. Bombastic approaches to dictate do not foster progress. The majority of crew genuinely wish for a resolution without resorting to strike action; however they are being forced up to a cliff precipice, over which they do not wish to be pushed either.

Cabin crew is a way of life. It is so much more than a job. For all those who perceive it in terms of privileged, elite and glamorous; there are counter arguments for fatigue, illness, depression, loneliness, isolation, cultural and socio-estrangement. Truly, only crew understand crew - and therein lies a bond and comradery perhaps only akin to the forces. Where else would you walk into a room and be expected to work/live alongside people you had never met before, even to the degree of trusting them with your life, whilst serving the public with unified rapport? This cohesive loyalty is what keeps us buoyant through these cumulatively distressing times.

There is a lot to be said for dignity and loyalty, just as there is for support and honesty. Once again I would like to thank you, Mr Ison, for demonstrating the latter.*

Yours truly,

Cheers,

rich


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

rusty ,, i have not yet read your post, but will do soon, 
to all others,, do you really think that it is right that the company continue and profits be made for the share holders at the expense of their current workforce,, or the creation of a new slave one,,,,,


----------



## hooting_owl (Sep 3, 2008)

roddy said:


> to all others,, do you really think that it is right that the company continue and profits be made for the share holders at the expense of their current workforce,, or the creation of a new slave one,,,,,


it isn't right - which is why i think james dyson is a complete bastard for moving production overseas when the company was making a mint for him.

last time i looked (this morning), BA was in the shitter profit-wise. and the large majority of people i know working in the private sector are having to put up with pay cuts or pay freezes. as well as cuts in benefits and perks. the airline industry is fecked at the moment.

allegedly BA crew are the best-paid in the industry - i presume this is true -if not at the levels originally stated in the press. if they are not the best paid, then they all have the option of leaving and joining another airline who are offering more.

there is a recession in progress and anyone asking for more money (no matter what their job) is going to be subjected to public scrutiny. calling a twelve day strike over the holiday period and threatening to wreak havoc on the travel plans of that same public was never going to win the sympathy vote, was it? the union made fools of its members.

when BA is making money again, i will happily cheer-on the foot soldiers of the organisation in their fight for an increase in pay. i despise corporate greed and the outsourcing of jobs away from the uk. but hasn't BA always been managed by conniving little shits?


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2010)

Meh. Most people are struggling at the moment.

I didn't get a payrise last year, or a christmas bonus, for the first time ever. Just most of us don't feel the need to disrupt others because of it :roll:


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

manphibian said:


> Meh. Most people are struggling at the moment.
> 
> I didn't get a payrise last year, or a christmas bonus, for the first time ever. Just most of us don't feel the need to disrupt others because of it :roll:


i presume you have a contract and expect it to be honoured,, or do you just lye down and be walked all over,,, :? :? :?


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2010)

roddy said:


> manphibian said:
> 
> 
> > Meh. Most people are struggling at the moment.
> ...


I understand that times are hard, and only expect pay rises when it's reasonable to do so.... Which isn't now.

Many airlines are going out of business. Many of the BA staff should be grateful they even have a job. imo.


----------



## Bladerider (Dec 2, 2009)

I think its an interesting letter,

As it gives an insight into how up themselves the cabin crew seem to be (sorry again Rich) in that they call what they do "A proffession" which last time I checked, a steward-ess didnt have to train for 7 years to qualify for.

They feel that they have some kind of "super job" to do, with grandios statements about "Life in hands of strangers" and "having their mortgages and obligations tied to their wages" like its something special. THEY ARE JUST FLYING WAITERS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD !!! You can tell none of them have worked in anything hard or truly dangerous in their lives just from that one letter !!

Heres a few examples for these lofty perched preachers....

I work on a building site, and a crane is required for only a few days to lift many tons of kit above my head, with a driver and banksmen I have never met before and will probably never meet again. The building industry is just about the most dangerous vocation this side of a bomb disposal expert in the 'ghan and the likelihood of an accident with the scaffold (put up by men Ive never met) the crane or the bloke in the concrete lorry who's not checked his mirror for a second (having never been introduced to me) could quite easily come from any direction at any time.

Yet the tradesmen on the site who dont have the aloofness to call themselves professionals (except the architects who genuinely do have a profession) have trained for many years longer, worked far harder physically, often put up with genuine strains and stresses as part of the job and all the time in a much more hazardous environment than any winged trolley chauffeur ever has yet dont feel the need to go on strike - despite often getting shafted over money, having no back up for contracts from unions and more often than not being self employed and hence having far more at risk with regards their financial lives and families.

Theres 100 times as many people in the building industry as in the airline industry and if we all went on strike then the country really would be in the shyte and not just because they couldnt go on hioliday, yet we all just get on with it. We take a pay cut when times are like this, we understand the concept of supporting each other and winding our necks in when times are tough and we dont bother making out we're some form of deity.

THATS why I find all this a big nonsense about a bunch of people who went into the industry knowing that with the perks of the job came downsides as well, so they felt their permatan was worth the long shifts before they even got involved. So to turn round and use that as an excuse if laughable. Im not saying that BA is wholly in the right or that their tactics or methods are to be applauded, I just think the cabin crew need to take a much larger slice of reality cake and follow it with some shutthefeckupandgetonwithyourjob mints !!!

 

J.


----------

