BA Strike, what will it do to BA?

[harvyk]

Incase you didn't already know (living on a remote desert island with no internet), BA staff are planning to strike over the christmas period (12 days). The question is will this kill BA?

As a company BA are not doing very well at all, they are not making a profit, they have asked staff to work without pay and Christmas is probably one of their busiest times and thus biggest earners.

Whilst for the frequent flyer they may know that this is not a common occurance and will probably continue flying them, the not so frequent flyer however will remember this, and may chose other airlines in the future.

So my question here is, could this strike be a nail in the coffin of BA, and the union trying to save 1,700 jobs end up costing everyone at BA their jobs?

Your thoughts???

 

[Mal]

*If* there is no compromise and neither party backs down, then BA will be severely damaged.

Probably not bankrupt or destroyed, but their future as a carrier would be in question. They have plenty of cash sitting in the bank, so aren't in immediate danger, but you can't bleed the amount of red ink they're currently bleeding forever.

What the union pig-headedly doesn't seem to see is that regardless of whether the strike happens or not, the number of cancellations, lost bookings and brand destruction will mean BA will have to cut more costs early next year...

 

[kamchatsky]

It is not just BA reputation that is damaged. OneWorld brand is also damaged. BA is the main European carrier for OW, and given there are few airlines in OW brand (compare to *A), any serious disruption for BA would severely impact many OW travelers worldwide.

From this example, it shows that *A has better model where they have far superior coverage in general, and if one airline goes on strike like this, the impact on alliance is less than what is happening in OW.

Whilst I am not a biggest fan of QF, I am glad that BA and QF have not been merged. BA seems to be basket case to me.

When I redeemed my QF RTW OW 140K award to Europe, I actually tried to avoid BA for London legs (HKG-LHR: used CX and LHR-HEL: used AY) even though their flights are available for redemption, because of BA's bad financial position (and I have never tried BA before, and would have liked to try). I suggest anyone else on this award should do the same.

 

[medhead]

Not sure about pointing fingers at the union on this. Their not the ones who have stuffed the company, their not asking staff to work for free. That can only go on for so long before the union has to step in and protect it's members. No point having a job if your not getting paid

management made this mess and they gotta own it. If I was a shareholder I'd cut their heads off.

 

[dajop]

Not sure about pointing fingers at the union on this. Their not the ones who have stuffed the company, their not asking staff to work for free. That can only go on for so long before the union has to step in and protect it's members. No point having a job if your not getting paid.

That may be a very simplistic view of the world/issues at hand. I guess union's wield a fair degree of power because BA is probably a protected species.

Is management actually asking the staff to work for free, or just take on extra responsibilities?

If it all went really pearshaped, BA goes bust (think AN), new airlines emerge that re-employ the good (read pretty) ex-BA staff (think DJ) at quite a bit lower than they were originally paid. Win-win? I don't think so.

But to a sense you are right with your view of management, QF in albeit vastly different circumstances have managed to keep a lid on their staff costs by a combination of outsourcing (Jetconnect, NJS, QF link, Impulse) and reassigning low yield routes to a lower cost operation and through attrition of higher paid staff members. With relatively little pain (other than the engineering go slow last year).

 

[samh004]

I think the union is going to end up costing themselves a lot more job losses next year. What they should do is acknowledge that right now BA is in the red and work out an understanding with management to resume talks when things are running more smoothly.

Management would need to sign off on such talks in the future, but I think the threat of a 12 day strike over christmas would be enough?

I don’t want BA to fail, but will be so happy to see a few more laid off because of this stupid strike action next year. They deserve it if they’re being so close-minded about the issues faced.

But what do I really know, so no flames please.

 

[harvyk]

Is management actually asking the staff to work for free, or just take on extra responsibilities?

They asked staff to work a month for free, this was about 6 months ago... It was voluntarily and I believe some very high up managers also did so (although I don't know if it affected their bonuses).

In any case BA management need to do something and quick, and removing meals from shorter flights (one of the advantages they had over LCC's) I don't think is the answer.

I also hope that BA pull it together, as it would be a shame to see it go.

 

[drron]

Not sure about pointing fingers at the union on this. Their not the ones who have stuffed the company, their not asking staff to work for free. That can only go on for so long before the union has to step in and protect it's members. No point having a job if your not getting paid

management made this mess and they gotta own it. If I was a shareholder I'd cut their heads off.

But the fact that BA's LHR crews earn twice that of Virgin atlantic doesnt help the bottom line either.This is where the jetstarisation of QF has paid off for the shareholders-salaries have been reduced.The FAs vote may well have bought forward the days of salary cuts for themselves.

 

[serfty]

... management made this mess and they gotta own it. If I was a shareholder I'd cut their heads off.

Management made this mess by not finding a way to cut salaries sooner when faced with a competition paying their staff a lot less than BA.

As posted, Qantas found a way with JQ and Jetconnect.

But the fact that BA's LHR crews earn twice that of Virgin atlantic doesnt help the bottom line either.This is where the jetstarisation of QF has paid off for the shareholders-salaries have been reduced.The FAs vote may well have bought forward the days of salary cuts for themselves.

 

[medhead]

I would be fully supportive of BA management slashing and burning or taking the jetstar option, in other circumstances. eg if they did it 12 months ago. The problem is that they have called upon the good will of employees to try to keep things going with out change. Obviously this hasn't worked, and it was commendable for them to try. But employees via their representative have a right to be annoyed now that they are slashing and burning after many employees have given free labour in order to try and prevent this from happening.

They asked staff to work a month for free, this was about 6 months ago... It was voluntarily and I believe some very high up managers also did so (although I don't know if it affected their bonuses).

Yep, and they put it in terms that those who did work for free voluntarily would be given favourable consideration if job cuts were being considered in the future. It sounds a lot like the voluntary mandatory contributions to the school's building fund.

 

[Alanslegal]

Who in their right mind would fly BA anyway To me, their planes feel old, the crew are much more bland and the food even in premium cabins is below par.

Friends who fly the AUS-EUR route multiple times per year also avoid them for those reasons I mention. And also when you have a growing competition from middle eastern carriers such as EK, EY, not to mention some asian carriers like OZ, SQ ... then its a hard call to fly BA when there are many alternatives and much better as well.

 

[bambbbam2]

 

[medhead]

5% of staff call in sick everyday :!:

There are so many things around that statistic that scream management failure.

 

[docjames]

5% of staff call in sick everyday :!:

There are so many things around that statistic that scream management failure.

/PH on/

please explain??

/PH off/

Why is it "management failure"? I'd say 5% isnt too disasterous an absentee rate.

If you are required to be away from home etc, wouldnt it be not unreasonable to call in sick before leaving, than get stuck overseas, especially when your role is to provide safety / customer care - I imagine many on this board wouldnt hesitate to scream if a FA was sniffling all over them, cranky because of headache etc

 

[davidj-bell]

They asked staff to work a month for free, this was about 6 months ago... It was voluntarily and I believe some very high up managers also did so (although I don't know if it affected their bonuses).

In any case BA management need to do something and quick, and removing meals from shorter flights (one of the advantages they had over LCC's) I don't think is the answer.

I also hope that BA pull it together, as it would be a shame to see it go.

People were asked to either work for a month free, or take the month off without pay. It was for either july or august, or around then. From memory, a lot of people took the second option, and only very senior managers I would assume took the first option (and probably felt they had no choice, but that's the life of a high flying corporate executive I suppose).

 

[medhead]

/PH on/

please explain??

/PH off/

Why is it "management failure"? I'd say 5% isnt too disasterous an absentee rate.

If you are required to be away from home etc, wouldnt it be not unreasonable to call in sick before leaving, than get stuck overseas, especially when your role is to provide safety / customer care - I imagine many on this board wouldnt hesitate to scream if a FA was sniffling all over them, cranky because of headache etc

5% is an excessive absentism rate. That means the entire staff is having a day off every 20 days! This is a 365 days business that means every staff member is taking 18 sick days a year on average. It is indicative of staff unhappiness and low moral.

I've been in a very poor situation with work in the past and I didn't even go close to using that much sick leave. In my current work group that would mean 1 person sick every day of the year. That just does not happen.

edit: or maybe not, just realised that the cabin crew are not the only staff. opps

 

[samh004]

I don’t understand how any cabin crew can be unhappy when they’re making double that of Virgin cabin crew. What a crock of… at least we’ll get some satisfaction when they actually get laid off because of the damage the strike caused. I’d laugh.

 

[medhead]

I don’t understand how any cabin crew can be unhappy when they’re making double that of Virgin cabin crew. What a crock of… at least we’ll get some satisfaction when they actually get laid off because of the damage the strike caused. I’d laugh.

well you might think it's a crock but explain why so many are taking sick leave, if they are happy.

besides 29000 quid ain't that much

 

[Nigelinoz]

besides 29000 quid ain't that much

If you want to have a reasonable standard of living and live anywhere even remotely near London then it certainly isn't much!

 

[docjames]

well you might think it's a crock but explain why so many are taking sick leave, if they are happy.

besides 29000 quid ain't that much

STG 29k aint much if you live in london!


I'd still argue there's plenty of businesses where 5% absenteeism is common. YMMV.