And The Strike Achieved What, Exactly?

[Mike W]

I really think the Union is totally detached on what is really happening with BA's finances.

See this perspective from Fleetbuzz Editorial...

http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2010/03/22/ba-strike/

On Tuesday March 23 2010, the swathes of British Airways cabin crew that went on strike will return to work only to embark on another set of industrial action this coming weekend for another four days.

After the strikes have been carried out, union members will need to ask themselves just what their walkout achieved.

They’ll be going back to work knowing that the changes that the airline has brought in will still be there, just as they were when they took to the picket lines. One only need look at the IAM union strike at Boeing in the fall of 2008 - even after reaching an agreement, the IAM was greeted with the news that the second 787 production line would not be in Everett. Did the IAM achieve what they set out in terms of job security?

Will the Unite union somehow “win” what it claims it can?

Not bloody likely, many would agree.

Continues...

[Sarah C]

Very good editorial in my view. While it could be argued Walsh could have done more, he is doing all he can to turn around BA's situation. The conditions and pay BA crew get is widely known to be some of the best around - it is a shame unions are not joining the real world and understanding this. I agree totally with Walsh's approach and giving in to the union will just continue the airline's spiral into bankruptcy. If everything continues as it is, BA won't survive much longer.

Changing conditions will save money - he could just slash the pay for every employee. If these employees are so unhappy with the conditions, resign and give your position to someone else. Your colleagues in the airline have taken pay cuts, worked without pay - you should do the same.

If BA goes under, the Unite union won't do anything to help the now emplyed workforce into jobs thats for sure. Unions look after themselves first.

[Matt D]

And The Strike Achieved What, Exactly?

A headache for the incumbent Labour government only 6 weeks before an election.

The union, Unite, has over 2 million members and by way of Labour party constitution has an enormous say in how Labour operates, who the Labour leaders and candidates are

Charlie Whelan, a leader of the union, was Gordon Brown's press secretary for 7 years and is still regularly seen in Downing St.

A headache for a Labour government when polls clearly show public support for the industrial action is low.

On the positive side there have been very few dalays inbound and outbound from Heathrow
Matt

[Robert S]

Does anyone have any idea of what's really going on over there?

BA seems to be saying that yes it is impacting them, but it's not so bad, while the union is claiming that their operations have been absolutely crippled - they're not both right (although as I continue to google as I write this, the union's latest release does seem to finally admit to what we already knew and was never a secret - the airline is very actively circumventing them to keep pax moving).

I have to say - when they tried (and failed) to strike at Christmas/NY, the union automatically lost my sympathies as clearly this was not a good faith action IMO - striking at a time which was intended to cause maximum damage to the company and which as collateral damage would cause disruption to the maximum number of passengers and significant cost to the airline's standing and goodwill. That's not about merely proving a point any more.

What arguments I have bothered reading from the union have not been remotely convincing anyway to be honest... it seems to fall back to "we'll give up a bit, but we still want to be the best paid crew in the business" and never addresses the economic situation that BA finds itself in. After that it seems to devolve into prattling on about the wine selection in First and how it isn't as good as it used to be, or something.

Ultimately as per the thread title's question - these strikes don't seem to be getting them anywhere at all. At the moment their response appears to be "No problem, we'll have more strikes then". Nice.

[D Chan]

And The Strike Achieved What, Exactly?

the strike did not achieve the original purpose which is the union's strategy to force management to back down.

As they haven't back down - the strike did not achieve much except for negative publicity and severe damage to the brand image & reputation. If the strikes keeps on coming we will see one side give in.

I would have thought if the travelling public decided to stay away from flying BA in future this could be used as a valid justification for cabin crew layoffs anyway... the way things are going right now it's pretty much a lose-lose situation for all.

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by Robert S

Does anyone have any idea of what's really going on over there?

The media over here are saying the strike is really all about getting Brown and the whole of New Labour out of government. The unions in particular have never like the direction that New Labour has taken and want a return to the grass roots of Labour. Pretty short minded, as no one in their right mind would vote an old Labour (union run) government back into power.

On top of the BA strike which is giving maximum publicity to Unites cause there is also a planned strike of railway signalers nationwide next week.

You can bet after the election the strikes will stop, regardless of who gets in to power.

I saw an interview on the BBC last Friday with Willie Walsh. From what I saw he seemed pretty reasonable and willing to at least negotiate, but alas the union is playing games. One thing that has upset a few people is those that have striked have lost their right to discounted air travel. Apparently it is not a guaranteed perk, hence the strikers no longer have this right,

[Owen H]

And if you listen to the union, they were quite reasonable and willing to negotiate too .

What both parties say in public and both say around the table will be two different things, and I'll bet the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I think that BA are being a bit opportunistic in trying to permantly slash conditions for a temporary downturn, but likewise the union are probably playing hardball.

I'm sure BA isn't devastated about the strike though... they traditionally make the union look bad in the aviation industry.

[Ash W]

Actually Owen the union is coming across of a pack of rat bags that only talk of striking.

As for cutting conditions etc, unless I am mistaken that is not actually what BA are trying to do. The main issue is cutting the number of cabin crew on long haul flights, through natural attrition. The union claim it will lead to poorer service (how you can get any worse is beyond me though) and is dangerous, despite their numbers still being higher than other airlines and also above regulatory requirements.

I just hope the actions of the striking cabin crew doesn't leave to the downfall of BA, already a lot of people are sick of all the uncertainty that surrounds flying BA and are talking of taking their business elsewhere. I for one have already done that, recently book some holiday flights to the US in May, and as there was talk of strikes I booked on AA, despite them costing about 50GBP more.

[Robert S]

Originally Posted by Ash W

As for cutting conditions etc, unless I am mistaken that is not actually what BA are trying to do.

I also interpret the cutting of perks as simply a tool in the current situation - it will maximise the number of cabin crew who cross the picket line. It isn't hard to envisage that they will end up being restored in some future agreement with the union, assuming they ever regrow their brains.

I just hope the actions of the striking cabin crew doesn't leave to the downfall of BA, already a lot of people are sick of all the uncertainty that surrounds flying BA and are talking of taking their business elsewhere.

That's my fear also. I certainly would not have booked my upcoming flight on BA in the current situation, although I'm also hoping as suggested earlier that it is unlikely the strikes will continue beyond the election.

[Saj_A]

Originally Posted by Ash W

The media over here are saying the strike is really all about getting Brown and the whole of New Labour out of government. The unions in particular have never like the direction that New Labour has taken and want a return to the grass roots of Labour. Pretty short minded, as no one in their right mind would vote an old Labour (union run) government back into power.

Not quite -the Unite union provides untold sums of money to the Labour Govt, they have absolutely no interest in them losing power.

Originally Posted by Owen H

And if you listen to the union, they were quite reasonable and willing to negotiate too .

What both parties say in public and both say around the table will be two different things, and I'll bet the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Thats what they tell the media - from day one they have talked about striking with no interest on saving the airline. Their actions heighten the need for job cuts, not save them.

Originally Posted by Robert S

I also interpret the cutting of perks as simply a tool in the current situation - it will maximise the number of cabin crew who cross the picket line. It isn't hard to envisage that they will end up being restored in some future agreement with the union, assuming they ever regrow their brains.

The staff concession will not be reinstated - its a privilege, not a right and BA was right to withdraw it. Thats seats that can be sold at full price rather than subsidize disgruntled employees.

Like it or not, the changes BA is making does not affect existing staff and the measures being taken are to save the airline from collapsing under its debts and pension obligations.

The unions have made that task harder and have no understanding of the basic concept that these strikes costs money that BA simply doesnt have - and BA is at risk of bankruptcy and no Govt will step in to save them. Any business that spends more money than it earns will go out of business.

The quicker BA management get rid of the union staff, employ flexible agency staff like Ryanair who have no legal right to complain or strike, the better BA can be at providing consistent service.

The marketplace has changed and the union leadership is too retarded to understand that what they are doing is jeopardising jobs and they deserve to be jettisoned