BA wins injunction to stop the strike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

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.

---

In the league table of pretentious blowhards who survey the world from the viewpoint of that place in their own fundament where their head is permanently located, you are undoubtedly the champion. Your self importance is as blatant as it is unjustified. Your arrogant contempt for anyone who dares to disagree with your pristine world view, is breathtaking.

You are "What's Left" in a nutshell.

Goodbye. Ignore list, I think. Since there isn't a self-regarding, half-educated moron list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khib70

In the league table of pretentious blowhards who survey the world from the viewpoint of that place in their own fundament where their head is permanently located, you are undoubtedly the champion. Your self importance is as blatant as it is unjustified. Your arrogant contempt for anyone who dares to disagree with your pristine world view, is breathtaking.

You are "What's Left" in a nutshell.

Goodbye. Ignore list, I think. Since there isn't a self-regarding, half-educated moron list.

---

Projection indeed! Just look at your avatar it somes you up perfectly.:wink:

On a serious note you are becoming a wee bit touchy. Keep calm I am a bit worried about your blood pressure. If you carry on like this you will give the impression that wisdom does not come with age.

I can't take serious anything you say, particularly with that avatar - very sad. When you make your belligerent remarks all that makes me think is that you are an apology for a human being which I am sure you are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody1985

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?

---

You've answered your own question again. Its called leverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArabHibee

You've answered your own question again. Its called leverage.

---

Yes, but it will be more damaging to the company as a whole in the long run and ultimately them, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody1985

Yes, but it will be more damaging to the company as a whole in the long run and ultimately them, IMO.

---

But only if the strikes go ahead, wouldn't you agree?

And after all that, guess who I flew home with last night:greengrin Wasn't too bad. I must admit I was tempted to ask about the strike but kept my mouth shut. By the way, maybe change to BA all the time. You get bacon rolls in their business lounge, much better than the rubbish in KLM and AFs!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GordonTurnbull

And after all that, guess who I flew home with last night:greengrin Wasn't too bad. I must admit I was tempted to ask about the strike but kept my mouth shut. By the way, maybe change to BA all the time. You get bacon rolls in their business lounge, much better than the rubbish in KLM and AFs!!!!!

---

BA lounges are the best by far, IMHO. The spread and drinks are good, plenty of mags and newspapers, big comfy armchairs and plenty of room so that some tit isn't sitting on your lap shouting into his Blackberry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArabHibee

But only if the strikes go ahead, wouldn't you agree?

---

It depends how long it drags on for I suppose, if it gets put back again then loyal customers may be taken away. If it goes ahead as a one off then the damage may not be too bad.

If they have a series of shorter strikes it will be quite damaging. The longer loyal customers stay away they more unlikely they are to go back.

Am I correct in saying that BA depend a lot on business customers? I wouldn't be interested in keeping on contracts or continuing with them with threats hanging over my head every time the staff are disgruntled.

I enjoy travelling with BA particularly on long haul flights. I would like to know what is a fair wage for working for BA, whether in the air as a pilot or air crew or at a check in stance?
Gerard

Thought I would bring this thread alive again now that the strikes gone ahead. question to all of you who slated the union still think that Willie Walsh and BA are right?

He withdrew the offer which could have settled the dispute then asked the staff to pay for another £27m in loss of bookings. The same staff who are scabbing this strike. The mans a joke. He should be removed. Nationalise BA . bring it back under public ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

Thought I would bring this thread alive again now that the strikes gone ahead. question to all of you who slated the union still think that Willie Walsh and BA are right?

He withdrew the offer which could have settled the dispute then asked the staff to pay for another £27m in loss of bookings. The same staff who are scabbing this strike. The mans a joke. He should be removed. Nationalise BA . bring it back under public ownership.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

Thought I would bring this thread alive again now that the strikes gone ahead. question to all of you who slated the union still think that Willie Walsh and BA are right?

He withdrew the offer which could have settled the dispute then asked the staff to pay for another £27m in loss of bookings. The same staff who are scabbing this strike. The mans a joke. He should be removed. Nationalise BA . bring it back under public ownership.

---

If the offer on the table 'would have settled the dispute' why was strike action even necessary?

As far as I heard, the latest offer on the table from BA was conditional upon talks continuing and no strike action being taken. Therefore when strike action was called the offer was withdrawn. This should have been no surprise to the UNITE union but instead they present it to the media as BA management 'wanting to go to war with the unions'.

Both management and the union are equally culpable of the systematic destruction of the BA brand. It is truly amazing to behold. Competitor airlines must be rubbing their hands with delight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BEEJ

If the offer on the table 'would have settled the dispute' why was strike action even necessary?

As far as I heard, the latest offer on the table from BA was conditional upon talks continuing and no strike action being taken. Therefore when strike action was called the offer was withdrawn. This should have been no surprise to the UNITE union but instead they present it to the media as BA management 'wanting to go to war with the unions'.

Both management and the union are equally culpable of the systematic destruction of the BA brand. It is truly amazing to behold. Competitor airlines must be rubbing their hands with delight.

---

Nonsense, Unite announced strike dates in the wake of the ballot and said they would conduct an electronic ballot of their members on the BA offer. There is nothing out of the ordinary about that, it's standard procedure. The strike would not have gone ahead if the offer was accepted by BA workers and would have gone ahead if it was rejected. Pretty simple, really.

They've now even gone as far as to say the strike will be halted if the offer is put back. There's no reason for Walsh and the BA management not to do this if they actually want the strike to end with a negotiated settlement.

Walsh would have known the strike would not have immediately been called off just because an offer was made (as that never happens) and so was able to make the offer knowing it would not be accepted on his ridiculous terms. The BA management wants the strike the go ahead (further evidence of which is the enormous amount of preparation undertaken) so they can destroy the obstacle to driving down wages and conditions - a highly unionised workforce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs

Nonsense, Unite announced strike dates in the wake of the ballot and said they would conduct an electronic ballot of their members on the BA offer. There is nothing out of the ordinary about that, it's standard procedure. The strike would not have gone ahead if the offer was accepted by BA workers and would have gone ahead if it was rejected. Pretty simple, really.

---

Well if that is true and the UNITE members via their ballot effectively rejected the offer on the table, why all the fuss about it now having been removed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs

They've now even gone as far as to say the strike will be halted if the offer is put back. There's no reason for Walsh and the BA management not to do this if they actually want the strike to end with a negotiated settlement.

---

So is that an admission by the union that the decision of the members to reject that offer was in fact wrong?

If the offer was regarded last week as being of no value at all, why is its removal suddenly being hailed as an example of macho management?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BEEJ

Well if that is true and the UNITE members via their ballot effectively rejected the offer on the table, why all the fuss about it now having been removed?

---

Eh? They didn't get to ballot their members on the offer. BA withdrew it before they could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BEEJ

So is that an admission by the union that the decision of the members to reject that offer was in fact wrong?

If the offer was regarded last week as being of no value at all, why is its removal suddenly being hailed as an example of macho management?

---

They haven't rejected any offer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs

Walsh would have known the strike would not have immediately been called off just because an offer was made (as that never happens) and so was able to make the offer knowing it would not be accepted on his ridiculous terms. The BA management wants the strike the go ahead (further evidence of which is the enormous amount of preparation undertaken) so they can destroy the obstacle to driving down wages and conditions - a highly unionised workforce.

---

In any other world that would be called sensible contingency planning in an attempt to minimise the disruption to passengers.

But maybe they should just not have bothered to make such feeble attempts to protect the BA brand?

It's just a matter of time anyway before BA sinks into some form of reconstructed after-life within which it will be a shadow of its former self. Sadly everyone will lose out.

Over 100 industrial relations academics sign a letter condemning Walsh and B.A.'s attempt to break the union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs

Over 100 industrial relations academics sign a letter condemning Walsh and B.A.'s attempt to break the union.

---

100 industrial relations experts academics send a letter to........................................ the Guardian. Now there's a shocker. Walsh will be quaking in his boots. :greengrin
(I am no fan of Walsh but I don't think he will lose any sleep over this.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs

Over 100 industrial relations academics sign a letter condemning Walsh and B.A.'s attempt to break the union.

---

Guardian-reading academics support union. Surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BEEJ

If the offer on the table 'would have settled the dispute' why was strike action even necessary?

As far as I heard, the latest offer on the table from BA was conditional upon talks continuing and no strike action being taken. Therefore when strike action was called the offer was withdrawn. This should have been no surprise to the UNITE union but instead they present it to the media as BA management 'wanting to go to war with the unions'.

Both management and the union are equally culpable of the systematic destruction of the BA brand. It is truly amazing to behold. Competitor airlines must be rubbing their hands with delight.

---

Absolutely agree both are culpable but the Unions have been watching too much "Life on Mars" recently and seem stuck on a 1970's timewarp which will be a contributing factor I suspect if (when) Labour lose the next election. BA will be out of business in 5 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

100 industrial relations experts academics send a letter to........................................ the Guardian. Now there's a shocker. Walsh will be quaking in his boots. :greengrin
(I am no fan of Walsh but I don't think he will lose any sleep over this.)

---

I'm not sure anyone was suggesting the letter has struck a decisive blow for the B.A. workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Guardian-reading academics support union. Surprising.

---

How do you know they're uniformly Guardian-reading?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskyhibby

Absolutely agree both are culpable but the Unions have been watching too much "Life on Mars" recently and seem stuck on a 1970's timewarp which will be a contributing factor I suspect if (when) Labour lose the next election. BA will be out of business in 5 years

---

Definitely. So many of the Unions are carrying on like it's the 70s.

What undid Labour then, looks like it could undo them now.

Folk need to move on because labour relations have moved on. Unions do have a role in influencing and negotiating. But right now, some of them are carrying on like the worst of them in the 70s and 80s.

Quote: Lucky / Nationalise B.A. - Beefster / Why?


Why no'? Although I'm biased & would re-nationalise everything gifted to the private sector since '79. The only thing in life I don't blame Thatcher for is our S.Cup failing, given that predates her by a couple of years.
The banks behaviour before during & after the recent catastrophe underlines what happens when you allow private individuals & groups to run anything without heavy government intervention.
B.A. has become a shambles, despite or perhaps because of the axe-wielders. These days very few unions try to bring their members out without it being the last throw of the dice; most folk can ill-afford to lose the money & we are unfortunately moving away from collective action anyway. B.A. management are trying to break the union once & for all, probably before whoring themselves off in some seedy sell-off.
Let me tell you, boy, come the revolution..actually the games about to start.

YouTube - Pay Check: What is UNISON's Dave Prentis on?


I know it's UNISON, but the point is the same. Trade Unionistas like to talk about fat cats, but what about if that fat cat is one of their general secretaries?

Hypocrisy.

Bet you when BA go bust, these self same people will be moaning about how the government didnt bail them out. What about all that lost business because they were bickering about how much more money they ought to get for dishing out tea and coffee?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs

How do you know they're uniformly Guardian-reading?

---

A combination of an educated guess and the assumption that, if the majority read another newspaper, they'd have written to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malthibby

Quote: Lucky / Nationalise B.A. - Beefster / Why?


Why no'? Although I'm biased & would re-nationalise everything gifted to the private sector since '79. The only thing in life I don't blame Thatcher for is our S.Cup failing, given that predates her by a couple of years.
The banks behaviour before during & after the recent catastrophe underlines what happens when you allow private individuals & groups to run anything without heavy government intervention.
B.A. has become a shambles, despite or perhaps because of the axe-wielders. These days very few unions try to bring their members out without it being the last throw of the dice; most folk can ill-afford to lose the money & we are unfortunately moving away from collective action anyway. B.A. management are trying to break the union once & for all, probably before whoring themselves off in some seedy sell-off.
Let me tell you, boy, come the revolution..actually the games about to start.

---

Still no reason? I'm looking for the benefits of nationalising BA to the customers and country.

Would you want Easyjet and BMI nationalised too?

:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

A combination of an educated guess and the assumption that, if the majority read another newspaper, they'd have written to that.

---

As they're industrial relations academics I'd have assumed that they all read a number of different papers.

Why does the biggest ringpiece involved in this debacle have to be Scottish? It's like turning the clock back 30 years, I thought we had done away with these fuds, always Scousers or Scots.....so predictable and phecking embarrassing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corrie greens

Why does the biggest ringpiece involved in this debacle have to be Scottish? It's like turning the clock back 30 years, I thought we had done away with these fuds, always Scousers or Scots.....so predictable and phecking embarrassing.

---

Isn't Willie Walsh Irish? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

A combination of an educated guess and the assumption that, if the majority read another newspaper, they'd have written to that.



Still no reason? I'm looking for the benefits of nationalising BA to the customers and country.

Would you want Easyjet and BMI nationalised too?

---

That's because there isn't any.

Why the hell anyone would want to nationalise an airline is really truly beyond me.