BA Strike - Again

daviesee

Plans are for another stike, probably 29th April. What a surprise, not!

Two questions.

Why would anyone book flights with BA anymore?

and

How long will the company (and jobs obviously) last?

Personally, I don't plan to for the forseeable future and I used to like flying with them but I want to get to and from my destination thank you.

(Lobs grenade and leaves)

rick_chasey

I booked BA the other day...

*sigh*

It was by far and away the most convenient flight if it actually flies

Stewie Griffin

BA went on my no fly with list last year. Currently, its only got BA and Ryanair on it.

daviesee

I currently have 2 trips planned this year.

One with Ryanair, one with Easyjet and hopefully one other. Unfortunately all the destinations chosen for the third so far are only via BA. Looks like it could be a bad year

Jez mon

Haven't flown BA in a while, my choice of airline is based wholly on cheapest fare and seeing as the majority of flights I take are short haul, BA rarely gets a look in.

FWIW, I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the cabin staff, whilst I can see why they strike during this time of year, I think ruining families holidays is pretty low.

-spider-

There's cheap flights and there are nasty flights. Like Stewie I wont fly BA or Ryan where they can be avoided (and that would include rail or car!)

Pokerface

Perfect. I'm due to fly to Australia on April 29.


On BA. :oops:


I wouldn't mind if they strike on May 1 and I get stuck there for a while though.

Pokerface

No strike dates are set yet. So it could be any time after the 29th...



(I don't book my own flights and often get stuck on either BA or Ryanair - both airlines I would prefer to avoid like the plague given the choice)

mrushton

Never had a problem with Easy or Ryan. BA are painful because they require a change at Gatwick or Heathrow for me whereas budget airlines fly to where I might need to go. ALso, I remember a time a few years back when BA announced they weren't interested in economy flights, they were targeting Business/First Class. Then budget airlines appeared and suddenly things looked different.

tlw1

Jez mon wrote:

FWIW, I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the cabin staff, whilst I can see why they strike during this time of year, I think ruining families holidays is pretty low.

Agree 100%, it's not like they are the worst paid in the industry

One Man And His Bike

daviesee wrote:

Why would anyone book flights with BA anymore?

World class advertsing that lasts decades perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxbgm9Bmkzw

Mad Roadie

BA - the world's last choice airline,

MattC59

I don't have a problem with BA to be honest. However, I do have a problem with the selfish, greedy tw*ts who call themselves cabin crew and vote to strike.

(I don't have a problem with the two gorgeous Virgin Atlantic stewardesses who I met on my stag do in Brighton though)

beverick

They've only done it to spite the French. It's the domain of French air traffic control to f*** up air travel at Eeaster, not some jumped up aviators from Uxbridge.

Bob

Pokerface

beverick wrote:

They've only done it to spite the French. It's the domain of French air traffic control to f*** up air travel at Eeaster, not some jumped up aviators from Uxbridge.

Bob

The Spanish are pretty good at this also.

Bobbinogs

[ironic font] I decided to help the strikers by ensuring that my holiday did not include BA flights. That way, I am helping BA to go bust so that the unions will get the desired result...[/ironic font]

fast as fupp

MattC59 wrote:

I don't have a problem with BA to be honest. However, I do have a problem with the selfish, greedy tw*ts who call themselves cabin crew and vote to strike.

(I don't have a problem with the two gorgeous Virgin Atlantic stewardesses who I met on my stag do in Brighton though)

yes! they should work for fupp all- like no doubt you do?

Frank the tank

Fast as fupp, I'm a bit disappointed you got drawn there my owd. I think those interested all made our stances clear the last time this raised its head.

Union bating could be an olympic sport on here.

markos1963

Frank the tank wrote:

Fast as fupp, I'm a bit disappointed you got drawn there my owd. I think those interested all made our stances clear the last time this raised its head.

Union bating could be an olympic sport on here.

Agree, getting fed up of having to explain to all the Daily Mail readers in here that reason they can go on holiday in the first place is down to the very Unions they are bashing.

daviesee

Well, it took a while but the grenade finally went off :twisted:

antikythera

markos1963 wrote:

Agree, getting fed up of having to explain to all the Daily Mail readers in here that reason they can go on holiday in the first place is down to the very Unions they are bashing.

Don't read the fail and never been a member of a union. I got to where I am through hard work instead!

Oh, and make a point of never using BA, so no disappointments... simples

rick_chasey

markos1963 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Fast as fupp, I'm a bit disappointed you got drawn there my owd. I think those interested all made our stances clear the last time this raised its head.

Union bating could be an olympic sport on here.

Agree, getting fed up of having to explain to all the Daily Mail readers in here that reason they can go on holiday in the first place is down to the very Unions they are bashing.

Ironic, given that (as far as I can remember anyway) the only papers available to read on BA flights are:

the daily mail

The telegraph.

andyrm

I've got zero sympathy for the cabin crew. After uni 12 years ago, I fancied a change and spent a couple of years working for Monarch as cabin crew - BA were paid far better than us and had better perks of the job, they still do.

While I was in the industry, the trouble making union (that has since been swallowed up into Unison) was just making its presence felt - even back then, the agenda was all about militance and intimidation of the company.

Knowing that there is a huge backlog of good available staff from other airlines and out of the pre-qualification courses, I think BA should be looking to their corporate legal team, rewriting all contracts into rolling 6 month contracts with provisos that industrial action will result in immediate termination. There's plenty of people to replace them if they want to play at Scargill.

What astounds me is that everyone knows BA has been loss making - they need their staff to tighten their belts to ensure survival of their employer, and yet this union has managed to get them to behave like this without any consideration of the commercial implications of their actions.

BA has been on my "no fly" list for the last 12 months because of this - I know many others also have this view as well, so it's likely only to be a matter of time before it goes pop.

Pokerface

I suppose the union behind the cabin crew are assuming the government will just bail out the airline if/when it does 'go pop'?

Surely they can't think that demanding more pay/benefits for an already failing airline will be in any way beneficial to it's long term survival. Or even short term!

andyrm

Pokerface wrote:

I suppose the union behind the cabin crew are assuming the government will just bail out the airline if/when it does 'go pop'?

Surely they can't think that demanding more pay/benefits for an already failing airline will be in any way beneficial to it's long term survival. Or even short term!

Having seen the mentality of the kind of people behind the union first hand, I can say without any doubt that you're about right. No commercial thinking, typical left wing union lunatics who are only a step away from wearing hammer & sickle badges........

MattC59

markos1963 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Fast as fupp, I'm a bit disappointed you got drawn there my owd. I think those interested all made our stances clear the last time this raised its head.

Union bating could be an olympic sport on here.

Agree, getting fed up of having to explain to all the Daily Mail readers in here that reason they can go on holiday in the first place is down to the very Unions they are bashing.

No it's not !! You've not thought that statement out have you :roll:

MattC59

fast as fupp wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

I don't have a problem with BA to be honest. However, I do have a problem with the selfish, greedy tw*ts who call themselves cabin crew and vote to strike.

(I don't have a problem with the two gorgeous Virgin Atlantic stewardesses who I met on my stag do in Brighton though)

yes! they should work for fupp all- like no doubt you do?

That's just it, BA cabin crew don't work for fupp all, they have the highest salaries in the industry and the best package of benefits and perks.

Nope, I earn a very good salary thanks, and the key word there is earn. I don't hold my employer to ransom because I think that my salary, which is highest in the industry in the BA CC case, should be higher. I also accept that in these economic conditions, there may be salary cuts of pay freezes. Why should BA CC be any different to anyone else ?

Bobbinogs

I find it disappointing that anyone who questions the actions of a union is simply dismissed with the tag "Mail reader".

As for the argument that anyone who is due to take a holiday but instead ends up trapped in T5 at Heathrow because the trolley dollies are out on strike (again) should actually be grateful to the unions for getting a holiday in the first place, nope I don't see that. When I think of what the Tolpuddle Martyrs went through and the conditions that prompted them to do, getting up to £60kpa and a fantastic pension and benefits package for pouring a few G&Ts seems to be a long way off.

daviesee

andyrm wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

I suppose the union behind the cabin crew are assuming the government will just bail out the airline if/when it does 'go pop'?

Surely they can't think that demanding more pay/benefits for an already failing airline will be in any way beneficial to it's long term survival. Or even short term!

Having seen the mentality of the kind of people behind the union first hand, I can say without any doubt that you're about right. No commercial thinking, typical left wing union lunatics who are only a step away from wearing hammer & sickle badges........

The other point of that is that while BA may go out of business and the staff may lose their jobs - the union leaders will continue on quite nicely.

For clarity - I believe that unions and strikes can be for the greater good - when used appropriately. This is not one of those causes.

Ben6899

"The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a crown."

morstar

andyrm wrote:

I think BA should be looking to their corporate legal team, rewriting all contracts into rolling 6 month contracts with provisos that industrial action will result in immediate termination.

I think the Scargill mentality of the unions is totally out of step with reality but at least we've found our Maggie to take them on.

Rolling 6 month contracts? Staff shouldn't hold businesses to ransom without strong justification but at what point do staff lose all rights as your model would have. It's a co-dependent relationship, one is nothing without the other.

Nice touch, that one. Just for the record though, even if this could be legally accomplished it would be meaningless. Once the contract had been renewed twice it would become a de facto permanent contract anyway.