BA wins injunction to stop the strike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

Again Simon at times all you seem to do is expose your ignorance and poor understanding of syntax, as you have outed yourself as a Tory I am now starting to think that this is a Tory strait. Good God, a Tory Hibby you are a rare bird.

I try never to patronise anyone but I will make an exception in your case. In the world according to Simon working people and their political and trade union representaives have done nothing positive. In your world the NHS, welfare state and universal access to education must not exist. I would give you an ounce of respect if you could acknowledge the trade union movements tremendous and positive contributions to the improvement of society, however Tories are not renown for unbiased objectivity they are trapped in their naïve individualism. Oh, I forget in your world "their is no such thing as society".

You are correct in one thing I do have a deep and enduring contempt for Tories, the miners strike entrenched this. I don't think it is hate but I do deeply despise them. I leave you with the words of my hero Nye Bevan and as always he sums it up more elequently than I ever could:

"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation. Now the Tories are pouring out money in propaganda of all sorts and are hoping by this organised sustained mass suggestion to eradicate from our minds all memory of what we went through."

---

Ha ha ha you make wayyyy too many assumptions in your ivory tower I'm afraid.

If you had read my post it is quite clear that I stated you were dead wrong in calling m a Tory....still didn't stop you posting total supposition about me and my views to try and fabricate a situation for you to spout forth once more.

Leaving your rather strange need to fabricate my views on a number of topics aside lets examine my understanding of your original post as it seemed quite straight forward to me:

You stated that "reading through this thread I am still amazed by how many reactionary Tories there are who are Hibs supporters"

You are therefore putting forward the idea that most posters on this thread are "reactionary Tories" by stating your amazement at how many there was and of course only basing that statement on your reading of this thread.

Reactionary Tories I would safely assume are right wing

You then state "right-wingers are lower than vermin, selfish self seeking apologists - detestable"

Ergo you are quite clearly stating that you have assumed most posters on this thread are reactionary tory right wing vermin.

Since you are in such a patronising mood (not unlike you I must say) I would be delighted for you to improve my understanding of grammar and syntax to explain just what part of the above I have misunderstood or misrepresented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green Mikey

Don't worry McIntosh you are pompous and pretentious without quoting your own book, the mention of your literary output in the majority of your posts aids this greatly.

I was fully aware that your post was an opinion, that is why I asked you to validate the statements you made. If I believed they were fact why would I challenge them?

Your disparaging attack on my perceived misunderstanding of your post coupled with the reference to mutiple books only serves to further your personal conviction that your are intellectually superior. Attacking other people's opinions instead of engaging them in debate undermines the whole purpose of this board.

---

Well as I answered your question - is that not engaging with the debate? As for the debate, my statement hasn't been rebutted. As for attacking people read the posts, more sinned against than a sinner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Lost me. What misquoting? I merely cut and pasted from your posting.

---

When you posted at 10.49 I was correcting the post you were quoting and resubmitting it at 10.50.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

When you posted at 10.49 I was correcting the post you were quoting and resubmitting it at 10.50.

---

Too late on Christmas Eve to bust my brain :wink: Off to Bethlehem to pay my sin tax....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

If you had read my post it is quite clear that I stated you were dead wrong in calling m a Tory....still didn't stop you posting total supposition about me and my views to try and fabricate a situation for you to spout forth once more.....

Leaving your rather strange need to fabricate my views on a number of topics aside lets examine my understanding of your original post as it seemed quite straight forward to me:

You stated that "reading through this thread I am still amazed by how many reactionary Tories there are who are Hibs supporters"

You are therefore putting forward the idea that most posters on this thread are "reactionary Tories" by stating your amazement at how many there was and of course only basing that statement on your reading of this thread.

Reactionary Tories I would safely assume are right wing

You then state "right-wingers are lower than vermin, selfish self seeking apologists - detestable"

Ergo you are quite clearly stating that you have assumed most posters on this thread are reactionary tory right wing vermin.

Since you are in such a patronising mood (not unlike you I must say) I would be delighted for you to improve my understanding of grammar and syntax to explain just what part of the above I have misunderstood or misrepresented.

---

Well, Simon here is your statement at 4.23pm 23/12/2009

If you think I should have any gratitude for unions like Unite then you are dead wrong, just like you are in calling me and others Tories, Right Wing or lower than vermin.

Others is the confusing word, no comma or semi colon - though I can see your point. I would say in your defence that that short messages are difficult in fully conveying opinions. I won't disrespect you in the manner that you frequently do to me. Regardless of this, in respect to my opinion on certain posts I never quantified or clarified the numbers, I deliberatly left it generic - if there were more than one, that for me is surprising. Therefore you do make a massive leap in relation to your latter statements.

Back on topic, I ask you this question, do you think that the trade union movement have made any form of positive contributions to society, if so what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

After reading through this thread I am still amazed by how many reactionary Tories there are who are Hibs supporters, for me being right- wing and a Hibby is just not possible. The right-wingers are lower than vermin, selfish self seeking apologists - detestable.

The BA workers are fighting for their rights the wanton disregard for their democratic rights is a sad day. The more workers unite and fight for their rights the better this world will be, trade unionists are the salt of the earth and we as a society owe them a tremendous debt of graditute. I am surprised people here talk about skills and remuneration with such authority, we must be overun with HR professionals. I would love to hear if they considered they were overpaid or paid the market rate.

---

McIntosh

I have never voted Tory and never would. You can read my thoughts on the strike in the thread-I assume they are the kind of Tory comments you would allude to.

To me the basic facts of the matter are

1. BA is losing money big time
2. Their pensions deficit is in the billions and growing
3. Their cabin crew earn almost double their rivals-they are extremely well paid for a job that requires few skills
4. Any prolonged strike could see BA going in to administration
5. BA Have to cut costs to remain in the game and be competitive

Many people have taken a wage freeze/cut to try and preserve their jobs

How would you propose that matters should be resolved if workers are to maintain their pay and conditions as you assert they should?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

Well, Simon here is your statement at 4.23pm 23/12/2009

If you think I should have any gratitude for unions like Unite then you are dead wrong, just like you are in calling me and others Tories, Right Wing or lower than vermin.

Others is the confusing word, no comma or semi colon - though I can see your point. I would say in your defence that that short messages are difficult in fully conveying opinions. I won't disrespect you in the manner that you frequently do to me. Regardless of this, in respect to my opinion on certain posts I never quantified or clarified the numbers, I deliberatly left it generic - if there were more than one, that for me is surprising. Therefore you do make a massive leap in relation to your latter statements.

Back on topic, I ask you this question, do you think that the trade union movement have made any form of positive contributions to society, if so what?

---

Aww so the word 'other' made you totally miss the fact that I quite clearly stated the you were dead wrong in calling me a Tory.....with your powerful grasp of the English language I find this somewhat surprising. Still the point stands I did quite clearly refute your insinuation and yet you continued to fabricate all manner of views to associate with me.


I'm loving the "I won't disrespect you in the manner that you frequently do to me." and me making "massive leaps" statements. Remind me of who it was that that totally made up my views on NHS provision, universal education and stated that in my world "their is no such thing as society"....spot any any massive leaps or lack of repect there???


I also like the fact that after asking you to explain why I failed to understand your grammar and syntax (as you yourself pointed out in your own respectfuly patronising manner) your best effort is to try and indicate that the phrase "still amazed by how many " could actually mean your were merely surprised that there was even one....don't think you will gain an ounce of respect with that rather meek back peddle.


Finally the topic was nothing to do with if the "trade union movement have made any form of positive contributions to society"..it was about the stopping of Unite's strike call made off the back of an improper ballot....my points on that stand and despite your 'best' attempts they don't equate to me being a right wing tory vermin, NHS hater or education destroyer. You have quite simply made all of that up in your head and made yourself look rather silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goosano

McIntosh

I have never voted Tory and never would. You can read my thoughts on the strike in the thread-I assume they are the kind of Tory comments you would allude to.

To me the basic facts of the matter are

1. BA is losing money big time
2. Their pensions deficit is in the billions and growing
3. Their cabin crew earn almost double their rivals-they are extremely well paid for a job that requires few skills
4. Any prolonged strike could see BA going in to administration
5. BA Have to cut costs to remain in the game and be competitive

Many people have taken a wage freeze/cut to try and preserve their jobs

How would you propose that matters should be resolved if workers are to maintain their pay and conditions as you assert they should?

---

Historically cabin crew spoke two foreign languages and the company catered for the top end of the market, particularly business and first class customers. I don't consider the staff 'unskilled' but under-utilised, however they were operating in a fundamentally flawed business model which was over dependent on the vagries of a top-end business model.

If it is to remain competitive it must understand its market, as has been stated on this thread several times. The failure to do this rests not with the workers but strategic management. I strongly believe that contracts and conditions are sacrosant, however if changes are to take place then they must be negotiated. Suprnational legislation, particularly the Acquired Rights Directive supports this position.

I don't believe that a simplistic "slash and burn" policy will have no meaningful long-term effect. What is needed are new and original products, cost effective provision guided and directed by the consumer. Fundamentally a more balanced approach to its business model. This requires imaginative and visionary policies something conspicuously abscent from its current management regime.

In respect to who I considered to be Tories, I never considered you as such, I really hope I can differentiate between fair comments and anti-trade union prejudice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

Aww so the word 'other' made you totally miss the fact that I quite clearly stated the you were dead wrong in calling me a Tory.....with your powerful grasp of the English language I find this somewhat surprising. Still the point stands I did quite clearly refute your insinuation and yet you continued to fabricate all manner of views to associate with me.


I'm loving the "I won't disrespect you in the manner that you frequently do to me." and me making "massive leaps" statements. Remind me of who it was that that totally made up my views on NHS provision, universal education and stated that in my world "their is no such thing as society"....spot any any massive leaps or lack of repect there???


I also like the fact that after asking you to explain why I failed to understand your grammar and syntax (as you yourself pointed out in your own respectfuly patronising manner) your best effort is to try and indicate that the phrase "still amazed by how many " could actually mean your were merely surprised that there was even one....don't think you will gain an ounce of respect with that rather meek back peddle.


Finally the topic was nothing to do with if the "trade union movement have made any form of positive contributions to society"..it was about the stopping of Unite's strike call made off the back of an improper ballot....my points on that stand and despite your 'best' attempts they don't equate to me being a right wing tory vermin, NHS hater or education destroyer. You have quite simply made all of that up in your head and made yourself look rather silly.

---

Again Simon, you avoid answering a direct question - that says it all. You see why is all too easy for me to patronise you, you do make it easy.:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

Again Simon, you avoid answering a direct question - that says it all. You see why is all too easy for me to patronise you, you do make it easy.:wink:

---

Why should I bother answering a direct question from you that was only marginally related to the OP? If I wanted to have a debate on the history of trade unions I would have started a thread on it.

You carry on with your patronising but it doesn't cover the fact that you just keep on avoiding admitting that you made a sweeping generalisation that you couldn't back up, accused me of being disrepectful and of massive leaps when it was YOU totally fabricating my views so you could vent your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

Why should I bother answering a direct question from you that was only marginally related to the OP? If I wanted to have a debate on the history of trade unions I would have started a thread on it.

You carry on with your patronising but it doesn't cover the fact that you just keep on avoiding admitting that you made a sweeping generalisation that you couldn't back up, accused me of being disrepectful and of massive leaps when it was YOU totally fabricating my views so you could vent your own.

---

At the heart of the issue.

Again, I can't control your emphasise or inability to differentiate between opinion and fact. However, do read your opening lines and you are just a 'little' bit cheeky but thats nothing really, I've been attacked by better. Regardless of this, I made an observation and gave you every opportunity to state to all and sundry what you really believed. So if the cap fits wear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

I strongly believe that contracts and conditions are sacrosant, however if changes are to take place then they must be negotiated. Suprnational legislation, particularly the Acquired Rights Directive supports this position

---

Under what had been proposed, the existing cabin crew would not have seen any change to their individual terms and conditions. The only thing they were up in arms about was a two year pay freeze and having the number of crew on a long haul flight cut by one person to 14. The reducing of head count by one was to be covered by the Cabin Services Director on each flight actually having to do something rather than simply supervising others (something which was a bone of contention with the cabin crew already as it was seen as unfair they didn't seem to do anything on a flight). This would then see a reduction in staff numbers overall, all of which would have been achieved through voluntary redundancies.

New crew starting would have seen slightly different T's & C's on their contracts, but this has always been the case as they've been altered slightly down the years. Many of the existing staff are on various different conditions within their individual contracts depending on when they started with BA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

At the heart of the issue.

Again, I can't control your emphasise or inability to differentiate between opinion and fact. However, do read your opening lines and you are just a 'little' bit cheeky but thats nothing really, I've been attacked by better. Regardless of this, I made an observation and gave you every opportunity to state to all and sundry what you really believed. So if the cap fits wear it.

---

Attacked?....ha ha :yawn:

To 'all and sundry'....you mean to you, no one else asked the question as no one else was fabricating and inventing my opinions apart from you.

You simply have NO IDEA of what my answer would be or my beliefs on the made up ideals you gave me but you just keep on insinuating and inventing none the less. As I said your continual determination to do so makes yourself look really quite silly as is your obvious inability to defend your opening statement or to admit that you are simply making things up to give you room to make some sort of political statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

At the heart of the issue.

Again, I can't control your emphasise or inability to differentiate between opinion and fact. However, do read your opening lines and you are just a 'little' bit cheeky but thats nothing really, I've been attacked by better. Regardless of this, I made an observation and gave you every opportunity to state to all and sundry what you really believed. So if the cap fits wear it.

---

Since you have repeatedly stated that myself and SiMar can't differentiate between opinion and fact, can you tell me which of your comments below falls into each category.

The right-wingers are lower than vermin, selfish self seeking apologists - detestable.

trade unionists are the salt of the earth

how many reactionary Tories there are who are Hibs supporters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

Attacked?....ha ha :yawn:

To 'all and sundry'....you mean to you, no one else asked the question as no one else was fabricating and inventing my opinions apart from you.

You simply have NO IDEA of what my answer would be or my beliefs on the made up ideals you gave me but you just keep on insinuating and inventing none the less. As I said your continual determination to do so makes yourself look really quite silly as is your obvious inability to defend your opening statement or to admit that you are simply making things up to give you room to make some sort of political statement.

---

Well enlighten us, I await your reply with interest. Simon, it is easy to pretend to knowledge when you are entirely ignorant. Just remember, everything is a political statement.

Come on Simon you can do it, come out and tell us what you believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green Mikey

Since you have repeatedly stated that myself and SiMar can't differentiate between opinion and fact, can you tell me which of your comments below falls into each category.

The right-wingers are lower than vermin, selfish self seeking apologists - detestable.

trade unionists are the salt of the earth

how many reactionary Tories there are who are Hibs supporters

---

I am becoming convinced you just want to give me more rope to hang you with. Now lets look at the full quote:

For me being right- wing and a Hibby is just not possible. The right-wingers are lower than vermin, selfish self seeking apologists - detestable.

What don't you understand about the phrase "for me".

In relation to your second question, as above.

As for your final question, as I have said in earlier posts, one is too many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barney McGrew

Under what had been proposed, the existing cabin crew would not have seen any change to their individual terms and conditions. The only thing they were up in arms about was a two year pay freeze and having the number of crew on a long haul flight cut by one person to 14. The reducing of head count by one was to be covered by the Cabin Services Director on each flight actually having to do something rather than simply supervising others (something which was a bone of contention with the cabin crew already as it was seen as unfair they didn't seem to do anything on a flight). This would then see a reduction in staff numbers overall, all of which would have been achieved through voluntary redundancies.

New crew starting would have seen slightly different T's & C's on their contracts, but this has always been the case as they've been altered slightly down the years. Many of the existing staff are on various different conditions within their individual contracts depending on when they started with BA.

---

Thanks I wasn't aware of some of this, it just shows how much of a complicated issue it is - as they usually always are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

I don't believe that a simplistic "slash and burn" policy will have no meaningful long-term effect. What is needed are new and original products, cost effective provision guided and directed by the consumer. Fundamentally a more balanced approach to its business model. This requires imaginative and visionary policies something conspicuously abscent from its current management regime.

---

Well that paragraph is simply generalist management-speak. Easy for anyone to trot out.

Perhaps you could expand upon this and set out for us specifically what this new market strategy for BA should be?

The fact is that the consumer is guiding and directing. He / she (and increasingly their employer as well) is no longer willing to pay for exorbitant air-fares and is resorting to using:

> cheaper airline competitors;
> other modes of travel;
> alternative modes of communication (eg video-conferencing)

To maintain the 'status-quo' BA have to convince large numbers from within their customer base to part with much more cash than they appear willing to spend right now (and probably for some years to come).

So what would be your strategy to turn the BA ship around without touching the company's cost base?

Quotes for me coming home on Tuesday:

KLM $3164
Air France $4465
British Airways $5838.

My company does not like me flying BA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

Well enlighten us, I await your reply with interest. Simon, it is easy to pretend to knowledge when you are entirely ignorant. Just remember, everything is a political statement.

Come on Simon you can do it, come out and tell us what you believe.

---

Indeed it is. Hopefully, no-one here does it though, especially using strong (and potentially offensive) language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

Thanks I wasn't aware of some of this, it just shows how much of a complicated issue it is - as they usually always are.

---

Oh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BEEJ

Well that paragraph is simply generalist management-speak. Easy for anyone to trot out.

Perhaps you could expand upon this and set out for us specifically what this new market strategy for BA should be?

The fact is that the consumer is guiding and directing. He / she (and increasingly their employer as well) is no longer willing to pay for exorbitant air-fares and is resorting to using:

> cheaper airline competitors;
> other modes of travel;
> alternative modes of communication (eg video-conferencing)

To maintain the 'status-quo' BA have to convince large numbers from within their customer base to part with much more cash than they appear willing to spend right now (and probably for some years to come).

So what would be your strategy to turn the BA ship around without touching the company's cost base?

---

Management should be simple, so I take your remarks as a compliment, thank you.

As I said earlier, the business model would need to be diversified and expanded - event destintion management is not a new concept but one which has not been developed completely by air travel providers. If developed within an integrated approach which would include extensive marketing it can over time provide lucrative new markets, however the company would need to have a unique access. For an example of this look at 'Butch' Stewart's work (In the land where I have citzenship).

For the record to whom do I charge my fee?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Indeed it is. Hopefully, no-one here does it though, especially using strong (and potentially offensive) language.

Oh...

---

My word, I like how you use the word potentially, as that is all it is. On this particular thread there are a few posters like the dog in my street - good at giving it, not good at taking it.

In relation to your second point, I hope I can differentiate between a mutiplicity of issues and comments upon them seperatly relative to their own uniqeness. As you may see from the previous post I am now being asked to provide strategic policy by certain posters - you couldn't make it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

Management should be simple, so I take your remarks as a compliment, thank you.

As I said earlier, the business model would need to be diversified and expanded - event destintion management is not a new concept but one which has not been developed completely by air travel providers. If developed within an integrated approach which would include extensive marketing it can over time provide lucrative new markets, however the company would need to have a unique access. For an example of this look at 'Butch' Stewart's work (In the land where I have citzenship).

For the record to whom do I charge my fee?

---

Still gobbledigook. :greengrin Willie Walsh's job is safe for another week. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

In relation to your second point, I hope I can differentiate between a mutiplicity of issues and comments upon them seperatly relative to their own uniqeness. As you may see from the previous post I am now being asked to provide strategic policy by certain posters - you couldn't make it up.

---

Well as you present yourself as a know-it-all on most subjects under the sun ("Management should be simple...") you must expect more ordinary mortals to seek to learn at the feet of the master! :tee hee:

Still waiting......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BEEJ

Still gobbledigook. :greengrin Willie Walsh's job is safe for another week. :rolleyes:


Well as you present yourself as a know-it-all on most subjects under the sun ("Management should be simple...") you must expect more ordinary mortals to seek to learn at the feet of the master! :tee hee:

Still waiting......

---

I give you a quote from John Robertson, "I get easy money for it":wink:

Funnily enough my PhD did come from a Business School and I did lecture in that field for many years. Now the topic area you are talking about is the speciality of my brilliant wife and she is the worthy one.

By the way, just the Master, when I am I due my apotheosis :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

I give you a quote from John Robertson, "I get easy money for it":wink:

Funnily enough my PhD did come from a Business School and I did lecture in that field for many years. Now the topic area you are talking about is the speciality of my brilliant wife and she is the worthy one.

By the way, just the Master, when I am I due my apotheosis :greengrin

---

Those lectures must have been fascinating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody1985

Yes, perhaps if you get some levage in public services to show how much you are needed.

BA aren't needed. There are other airlines out there for everyone to use.

---

The point Woody was that BA were needed for the thousands who had booked flights with them during the potential strike times that were announced. That was their leverage. And the union buggered it up for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

As I said earlier, the business model would need to be diversified and expanded - event destintion management is not a new concept but one which has not been developed completely by air travel providers. If developed within an integrated approach which would include extensive marketing it can over time provide lucrative new markets, however the company would need to have a unique access. For an example of this look at 'Butch' Stewart's work (In the land where I have citzenship).

---

Straight out of the book of mangement bull**** IMO.

You'd fit right in making decisions at that level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corrie greens

Those lectures must have been fascinating.

---

More importantly they bought the house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArabHibee

The point Woody was that BA were needed for the thousands who had booked flights with them during the potential strike times that were announced. That was their leverage. And the union buggered it up for them.

---

I agree they were needed for those people but I wouldn't be in a rush to fly with them again if I were one of them.

Also, who's going to book just now knowing there is a strike pending?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barney McGrew

Straight out of the book of mangement bull**** IMO.

You'd fit right in making decisions at that level.

---

I don't make the language up but I would agree it is very convoluted. Though in its defence the language is a shorthand.

Your completely incorrect in your second statement, I actually didn't fit in because while I can spin it out that doesn't mean for a moment that l prioritise money above people. I have never thought that I am so important that I have the right to shaft anybody for any reason, particularly for the company shilling.

Completely of topic, originally the name of Barney McGrew was going to be McGrough. In my study there is a framed note from Brian Cant where he talks about the development of Camberwick Green, he's a lovely man.