BA wins injunction to stop the strike

It is surely wrong for over 90% of a workforce of 14000 to vote in favour of strike action only for it to stopped by a high court judge. Reason behind it is an administrative technicality which would not have effect the outcome. The union can not even appeal in less there is legal error.

Why are Unite still funding the Labour party? The Labour party have had 12 years to overturn the anti trade union laws. It has to be a human right for individuals to withdraw their labour if their employer is behaving in an unreasonable manner.

Again workers suffer, again the High court backs employers, again the UK is made to look a joke country with no respect or rights for its citizens.

Very sad day indeed.

Maybe we should let them strike and give jobs to the flyglobespan staff who are unemployed now :dunno:

Maybe we should support them in their fight to safe guard their pay and conditions and jobs. Also why has the Scottish Government or Westminster not stepped in to help safeguard these Globespan jobs? if its good enough for the banks why not Scotland's biggest airline?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

Maybe we should support them in their fight to safe guard their pay and conditions and jobs. Also why has the Scottish Government or Westminster not stepped in to help safeguard these Globespan jobs? if its good enough for the banks why not Scotland's biggest airline?

---

That's pay and conditions and jobs that are a significant contributor to the company to be loss making...how many will still have pay and conditions and jobs if the company goes bust ala Globespan? None.

BA moved to prevent a strike that would have been a brutal blow to the company as a whole and resulted in severe losses...the mere threat of strike has probably cost BA millions already, a strike by Unite would and could only be self defeating...the greatest of all phyrric victories.

Fact is Unite goofed by balloting people that it shouldn't have...personally I would blame ermmm Unite for that!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MyJo

Maybe we should let them strike and give jobs to the flyglobespan staff who are unemployed now :dunno:

---

:agree:

The BA staff who voted for strike action need a reality check. Are they totally oblivious to what is going on in their industry at the moment?

Given the speed that their company is losing money and the struggle that the airline industry finds itself in they are lucky that they are still in employment!

I really do wonder sometimes.:grr:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

Maybe we should support them in their fight to safe guard their pay and conditions and jobs. Also why has the Scottish Government or Westminster not stepped in to help safeguard these Globespan jobs? if its good enough for the banks why not Scotland's biggest airline?

---

Maybe they would deserve support if they actually had a valid cause. BA flight attendants get better pay than most carriers, and to strike at Christmas and disrupt thousands of people who have paid good money to get home to be with their family and friends is out of order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ten.sbih

The BA staff who voted for strike action need a reality check. Are they totally oblivious to what is going on in their industry at the moment?

Given the speed that their company is losing money and the struggle that the airline industry finds itself in they are lucky that they are still in employment!

I really do wonder sometimes.:grr:

---

so do I wonder :grr: just because a company is going through a bad patch the workers suffer. When BA were making millions in profits did the workers get extra pay? NO. The shareholders got a big fat dividend. Now that they are not making as much the workers have to suffer. Its attitudes like this that allowed Thatcher to introduce the most draconian labour laws in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

so do I wonder :grr: just because a company is going through a bad patch the workers suffer. When BA were making millions in profits did the workers get extra pay? NO. The shareholders got a big fat dividend. Now that they are not making as much the workers have to suffer. Its attitudes like this that allowed Thatcher to introduce the most draconian labour laws in Europe.

---

They earn a fantastic salary compared to other carriers:

BA £29,900
Easyjet £20,200
Jet2.Com £16,300
Virgin £14,400

Striking at a time of year that would only going anger customers by ruining the festive season for thousands, and do BA's already poor fortunes at the minute more damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ten.sbih

The BA staff who voted for strike action need a reality check. Are they totally oblivious to what is going on in their industry at the moment?

---

I know a few people who work for BA, and many are very disappointed with the way Unite have handled the whole strike ballot. They were led to believe in the lead up to the vote that any planned stoppages would be a rolling programme of three day stoppages beginning in January. They were as shocked as anyone when the details were announced after the result came out.

The likely outcome now is a re-ballot, which could be pretty interesting. Chances are, it will be nowhere near the landslide it was this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

They earn a fantastic salary compared to other carriers:

BA £29,900
Easyjet £20,200
Jet2.Com £16,300
Virgin £14,400

---

To be fair, while they do earn more than other airlines, those figures are inaccurate. The BA one includes all the allowances and shift pay, while the other ones are just basic salary.

One other thing I would mention is that Unite have got a ****ing cheek anyway. A few years ago, BA chose to farm out all their ground operations in Scotland and the North of England which resulted in hundreds of job losses - far more than would be lost if this industrial action is unsuccessful. What did the unions do to support their members up here - not a jot. Shame they didn't take such a moral stand then, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

They earn a fantastic salary compared to other carriers:

BA £29,900
Easyjet £20,200
Jet2.Com £16,300
Virgin £14,400

Striking at a time of year that would only going anger customers by ruining the festive season for thousands, and do BA's already poor fortunes at the minute more damage.

---

Can I just point out that just because BA staff get a better salary than all their rivals then they are supposed to just sit there and take a swift one to the goolies because they have better pay? I don't think so.
Everyone lives to their income and if its under threat you're not going to sit there and think 'well if I worked for Virgin I would be on 10 grand less, so aye ok, cut my salary'.

On another note, anyone else think the High Court judge may have had flights booked over the Christmas period with British Airways? :hmmm::devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArabHibee

Can I just point out that just because BA staff get a better salary than all their rivals then they are supposed to just sit there and take a swift one to the goolies because they have better pay? I don't think so.
Everyone lives to their income and if its under threat you're not going to sit there and think 'well if I worked for Virgin I would be on 10 grand less, so aye ok, cut my salary'.

On another note, anyone else think the High Court judge may have had flights booked over the Christmas period with British Airways? :hmmm::devil:

---

They aren't cutting their salaries, it's a 2 year pay freeze.

It's ok for the public sector to take a pay freeze, so it should be ok for these guys too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

They aren't cutting their salaries, it's a 2 year pay freeze.

It's ok for the public sector to take a pay freeze, so it should be ok for these guys too.

---

Fair enough but I'd still be peed off being told to take a 2 year pay freeze when the cost of living continues to rise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

They aren't cutting their salaries, it's a 2 year pay freeze.

It's ok for the public sector to take a pay freeze, so it should be ok for these guys too.

---

That's a pay cut as inflation goes up your wage remains static as such its a cut. They are also attacking their conditions and are having less people doing the job. Therefore increasing productivity of the workers and reducing their pay.


It is not right that public sector workers get a pay freeze to fund bailing out the banks.

Workers of the world unite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

That's a pay cut as inflation goes up your wage remains static as such its a cut. They are also attacking their conditions and are having less people doing the job. Therefore increasing productivity of the workers and reducing their pay

---

They're proposing a headcount reduction on long haul flights from 15 staff to 14.

Hardly a massive change.

Those salaries don't include all the allowances.

Long hual BA cabin staff can earn up to £60k a year.

Yes, really. :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barney McGrew

I know a few people who work for BA, and many are very disappointed with the way Unite have handled the whole strike ballot. They were led to believe in the lead up to the vote that any planned stoppages would be a rolling programme of three day stoppages beginning in January. They were as shocked as anyone when the details were announced after the result came out.

The likely outcome now is a re-ballot, which could be pretty interesting. Chances are, it will be nowhere near the landslide it was this time.



To be fair, while they do earn more than other airlines, those figures are inaccurate. The BA one includes all the allowances and shift pay, while the other ones are just basic salary.

One other thing I would mention is that Unite have got a ****ing cheek anyway. A few years ago, BA chose to farm out all their ground operations in Scotland and the North of England which resulted in hundreds of job losses - far more than would be lost if this industrial action is unsuccessful. What did the unions do to support their members up here - not a jot. Shame they didn't take such a moral stand then, eh?

---

Having read a little more, I can see that the figures quoted for BA salary is not base pay. However, some cabin crew are earning up to £800 allowances on top of a salary for having to travel to far flung locations.

It's not a bad package!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

Having read a little more, I can see that the figures quoted for BA salary is not base pay. However, some cabin crew are earning up to £800 allowances on top of a salary for having to travel to far flung locations.

It's not a bad package!

---

You're right it isn't bad at all, and one that many people would think twice about taking up as a career. As Hibbyradge says, depending on seniority/length of service/routes flown/over time etc. they can earn a pretty penny, which makes it all the more strange that they're happy to rock the boat. As I said before, I think Unite have been guilty of a good bit of misrepresentation to the staff prior to the ballot taking place.

They get to go to some great places, but pretty much the longest they're there is two nights (and even then it would be arriving late one night, staying there the next day and then an early start the next). They've also got places that they're escorted to and from the hotels and need to stay there for their stay because they're so dangerous to be in.

BA also got rid of Glasgow as a crew base round about the same as they punted the groundstaff, which means they're all now based out of London. So anyone that works for BA but lives up here has to pay for their own travel down to London in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArabHibee

Fair enough but I'd still be peed off being told to take a 2 year pay freeze when the cost of living continues to rise.

---

But what if the other option was to lose your job entirely? Would you still be peed off then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stueyn

But what if the other option was to lose your job entirely? Would you still be peed off then?

---

You're preaching to the converted there I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barney McGrew

You're right it isn't bad at all, and one that many people would think twice about taking up as a career. As Hibbyradge says, depending on seniority/length of service/routes flown/over time etc. they can earn a pretty penny, which makes it all the more strange that they're happy to rock the boat. As I said before, I think Unite have been guilty of a good bit of misrepresentation to the staff prior to the ballot taking place.

They get to go to some great places, but pretty much the longest they're there is two nights (and even then it would be arriving late one night, staying there the next day and then an early start the next). They've also got places that they're escorted to and from the hotels and need to stay there for their stay because they're so dangerous to be in.

BA also got rid of Glasgow as a crew base round about the same as they punted the groundstaff, which means they're all now based out of London. So anyone that works for BA but lives up here has to pay for their own travel down to London in the first place.

---

That's why they are fighting save their conditions which have been hard won over a number of years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

That's why they are fighting save their conditions which have been hard won over a number of years

---

They're not going to have any conditions soon given the way BA is going.

BTW, the reaction to the result of the strike ballot was a joke, celebrating going on strike like you've won the lottery?

:wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

They're not going to have any conditions soon given the way BA is going.

BTW, the reaction to the result of the strike ballot was a joke, celebrating going on strike like you've won the lottery?

:wtf:

---

Unfortunately in the UK, the process you have to go through before you can strike is a long and by no means certain one. Add that to the worries and concern of the crew which have been ignored and belittled by management for so long, then I think they would all have been feeling relieved to hear that management would finally have to sit up and take notice of their grievances.

The fact that BA have now successfully put through an injunction just underlines how hard it is to try and get any form of effective protest up and running in the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiberlin

Unfortunately in the UK, the process you have to go through before you can strike is a long and by no means certain one. Add that to the worries and concern of the crew which have been ignored and belittled by management for so long, then I think they would all have been feeling relieved to hear that management would finally have to sit up and take notice of their grievances.

The fact that BA have now successfully put through an injunction just underlines how hard it is to try and get any form of effective protest up and running in the UK.

---

Not true. All you have to do is hold a legal ballot of people who actually still work for the company. And perhaps not change the nature and length of the industrial action after the result is in.

Would you rather go back to the days of unballoted wildcat action stirred up by militants? Militants like Len McCluskey of Unite - a former henchman of the Trotskyist looney council in Liverpoool, and - god help us - a candidate for General Secretary of the union.

I confidently predict that there won't be a landslide vote for industrial action next time - when the workers actually know what they're supposed to be voting for.

I decided a few months to give BA a try for my rotation this trip so due to fly home via Heathrow on December 29th/30th. Main reason being is the way a lot of my workmates have raved about BAs business travel compared to the likes of KLM and Air France. Not a clue how much a ticket costs but would imagine in the 3-4,000 range. Now canceled and back to Air Frog. I am not going to miss my first New Year at home for bloody years and the yam match :greengrin

As to the rights and wrongs of the strike, I agree with their principals on striking if it is just about them losing money. If it is about more cost effective working practices that result in a little more work, no sympathy. Their union reps should be ripped to pieces for their handling of the ballot.

Nothing but good things to say about BA, and that has nothing to do with them over selling economy class on my £204 flight home from Shanghai and upgrading me free of charge to business class:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khib70

Not true. All you have to do is hold a legal ballot of people who actually still work for the company. And perhaps not change the nature and length of the industrial action after the result is in.

Would you rather go back to the days of unballoted wildcat action stirred up by militants? Militants like Len McCluskey of Unite - a former henchman of the Trotskyist looney council in Liverpoool, and - god help us - a candidate for General Secretary of the union.

I confidently predict that there won't be a landslide vote for industrial action next time - when the workers actually know what they're supposed to be voting for.

---

And only those who are still working for the company vote, not including those who were due to leave between voting and the proposed strike :grr:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

It is surely wrong for over 90% of a workforce of 14000 to vote in favour of strike action only for it to stopped by a high court judge. Reason behind it is an administrative technicality which would not have effect the outcome. The union can not even appeal in less there is legal error.

Why are Unite still funding the Labour party? The Labour party have had 12 years to overturn the anti trade union laws. It has to be a human right for individuals to withdraw their labour if their employer is behaving in an unreasonable manner.

Again workers suffer, again the High court backs employers, again the UK is made to look a joke country with no respect or rights for its citizens.

Very sad day indeed.

---

I'm all in favour of workers rights lucky but I feel your anger is misplaced here. It's not BA, the courts or the government that screwed up here it's Unite who carried out a ballot which did not meet the legal requirements. The union should be the ones hanging their heads in shame as their tactics have harmed their members. What sympathy might BA workers get now after the union cock up I wonder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

It is surely wrong for over 90% of a workforce of 14000 to vote in favour of strike action only for it to stopped by a high court judge. Reason behind it is an administrative technicality which would not have effect the outcome. The union can not even appeal in less there is legal error.

Why are Unite still funding the Labour party? The Labour party have had 12 years to overturn the anti trade union laws. It has to be a human right for individuals to withdraw their labour if their employer is behaving in an unreasonable manner.

Again workers suffer, again the High court backs employers, again the UK is made to look a joke country with no respect or rights for its citizens.

Very sad day indeed.

---

An administrative technicality? Illegal votes being counted is a technicality? I bet Mugabe uses the same logic.

The High Court was right to stop the strike and make Unite carry out a competent and fair ballot.

Every BA worker that I've heard on TV or radio is desperately unhappy with Unite's handling of the entire matter so I wouldn't expect the same landslide in the next ballot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

That's a pay cut as inflation goes up your wage remains static as such its a cut. They are also attacking their conditions and are having less people doing the job. Therefore increasing productivity of the workers and reducing their pay.


It is not right that public sector workers get a pay freeze to fund bailing out the banks.

Workers of the world unite

---

Ha ha I like the blinkered view on what constitutes workers.....I bet there are tens of thousands of bank employees that have faced exactly the same in the last two years....didn't see your indignation rising up for the common worker there or is it only some loss making companies and some types of workers that deserve such sabre rattleing?

Are Unite not the same union that organised the strike at Grangemouth for workers rights that related to workers that didn't even exist yet??

I'm surprised that there's no mention of Derek Simpson and his role in this escapade-a left wing dinosaur like Bob Crow and someone who does no favours to workers or company.

BA staff voted to strike(and I respect that though I think it was misguided) but the decision of the UNITE executive to have a 12 day strike was breathtaking. It was certainly not what the workers wanted-perhaps a series of rolling 2-3 day strikes.

The simple truth is that despite what some on this thread assert, the unions have had too much power for too long. Companies too have something to blame for being lazy in allowing salaries and terms to bloat and be unrealistic and uncompetitive.

Train drivers on £40k, £29k for steward(esse)s are unrealistic salaries and do not reflect skills involved for the jobs involved. And don't get me started on the postal strike....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

Are Unite not the same union that organised the strike at Grangemouth for workers rights that related to workers that didn't even exist yet??

---

That's the ones.

It also seems that the reason that the ballot was declared as unlawful was because Unite/BASSA (the cabin crew's union that's part of Unite) was actively encouraging staff who had taken voluntary redundancy to vote, even though they were totally inelligible to do so. They even had one of the senior folk in BASSA posting on their internet forum that people in this position should return their ballot papers voting yes for strike action as 'one finger finger up to BA'. :bitchy:

Not the sharpest tools in the box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArabHibee

Fair enough but I'd still be peed off being told to take a 2 year pay freeze when the cost of living continues to rise.

---

That is a fair point but if you had to choose between having a job with a two year pay freeze or no job ...... what would you choose?
Gerard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gerard

That is a fair point but if you had to choose between having a job with a two year pay freeze or no job ...... what would you choose?
Gerard

---

But who says that was the choice? They must have felt strongly enough about it to strike and not receive pay for the days of the strike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArabHibee

But who says that was the choice? They must have felt strongly enough about it to strike and not receive pay for the days of the strike.

---

They had no idea of the length of the strike-never decided/announced before the ballot. I'm sure not one of them thought it would be 12 days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goosano

They had no idea of the length of the strike-never decided/announced before the ballot. I'm sure not one of them thought it would be 12 days

---

Correct. I read somewhere that the Union led them to believe that if they voted to strike it would be 3 day strikes starting in January, not the 12 day strike that the Union decided on once the vote was announced. Unite haven't done themselves any favours by arsing this up IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

They're not going to have any conditions soon given the way BA is going.

BTW, the reaction to the result of the strike ballot was a joke, celebrating going on strike like you've won the lottery?

:wtf:

---

:agree:

This action has done further untold damage to the BA brand and on this occasion the union leadership appear to be entirely to blame for the mess. Even one of their own went on record and stated that they felt the strike action 'may have been a little over the top'!

Just what sort of parallel universe are they living in? :bitchy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

Maybe they would deserve support if they actually had a valid cause. BA flight attendants get better pay than most carriers, and to strike at Christmas and disrupt thousands of people who have paid good money to get home to be with their family and friends is out of order.

---

:agree: Totally agree.

I would not be pleased if I had paid hundreds of pounds on a holiday months in advance, really looking forward to it and then a week beforehand, I hear that the airline I'm flying with is going on strike. :bitchy:

Very pleased that this has not been allowed to go ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibee

:agree: Totally agree.

I would not be pleased if I had paid hundreds of pounds on a holiday months in advance, really looking forward to it and then a week beforehand, I hear that the airline I'm flying with is going on strike. :bitchy:

Very pleased that this has not been allowed to go ahead.

---

Another example of the workers trying to use the public for leverage during their proposed strike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody1985

Another example of the workers trying to use the public for leverage during their proposed strike.

---

Isn't that the whole point of a strike though? "Strike when the iron is hot" and all that? Strike when you will cause maximum disruption.

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.

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.

---

The BA Cabin Crew are the only ones involved in this, and even then it's only one of the two trade organisations within the Cabin Crew. The vast majority of the other other BA staff don't support what they are doing.

That should tell it's own story IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barney McGrew

The BA Cabin Crew are the only ones involved in this, and even then it's only one of two the two trade organisations within the Cabin Crew. The vast majority of the other other BA staff don't support what they are doing.

That should tell it's own story IMO.

---

Splits in the trade unions are not uncommon, however positive change is not dependent on 'reasonable' people. In my experience workers do not receive their rights out of largesse from an employer and it is that, that is the 'real' story.

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.

---

You sound incredibly Yammish. How awful.

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.

---

What a remarkable post!!! Yet another one suggesting that there is some sort of criteria to be met for being a Hibs supporter. I don't know anyone who would not support people that have been "wronged", but the potential BA strikers certainly do not fall into that catagory. They don't realise how lucky they are, and why oh why does the man orchestrating this debacle have to be Scottish :grr:

Trade Unionists are the salt of the earth:confused: Well they are certainly "something of the earth". The ones I have dealt with over the years have been trouble making layabouts unable to look at the bigger picture or potential consequences of their militancy. To even it up a bit, I view them with same dislike as the greedy bankers and fat cats that have bankrupted our country.

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.

---

What a ridiculous statement about a football, religious and political divides should have no place in sport. How is it difficult to be a Hibs supporter and right wing? How in any way do Hibs represent a left wing institution?

Your post is full of unfounded statements anmd sweeping generalisations:

People who oppose BA strike action = reactionary tories
Trade unionists = salt of the earth
All right wingers = vermin, selfish self seeking apologists - detestable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArabHibee

Isn't that the whole point of a strike though? "Strike when the iron is hot" and all that? Strike when you will cause maximum disruption.

---

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.

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.

---

Ahh more 'peace and love' McIntosh style....:faf:

You have managed to insinuate (quite wrongly) that anyone that has posted a view that is not in line with Unite's as being reactionary Tories and therefore right wing.

You then call all right wingers as "vermin".....for a proponent of peace and love you sure as hell have a lot of vitriol to throw about, this time aimed at a significant amount of people that have posted on this thread.

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.

Have a look at what has happened and tell me where there has been "a wanton disregard for their democratic rights"...you might find it was actually their own Union that was abusing their democratic right by knowingly holding a ballot that included ineligible votes and then deciding on the severity of the strike action AFTER the vote.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

Ahh more 'peace and love' McIntosh style....:faf:

You have managed to insinuate (quite wrongly) that anyone that has posted a view that is not in line with Unite's as being reactionary Tories and therefore right wing.

You then call all right wingers as "vermin".....for a proponent of peace and love you sure as hell have a lot of vitriol to throw about, this time aimed at a significant amount of people that have posted on this thread.

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.

Have a look at what has happened and tell me where there has been "a wanton disregard for their democratic rights"...you might find it was actually their own Union that was abusing their democratic right by knowingly holding a ballot that included ineligible votes and then deciding on the severity of the strike action AFTER the vote.....

---

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corrie greens

What a remarkable post!!! Yet another one suggesting that there is some sort of criteria to be met for being a Hibs supporter. I don't know anyone who would not support people that have been "wronged", but the potential BA strikers certainly do not fall into that catagory. They don't realise how lucky they are, and why oh why does the man orchestrating this debacle have to be Scottish :grr:

Trade Unionists are the salt of the earth:confused: Well they are certainly "something of the earth". The ones I have dealt with over the years have been trouble making layabouts unable to look at the bigger picture or potential consequences of their militancy. To even it up a bit, I view them with same dislike as the greedy bankers and fat cats that have bankrupted our country.

---

"How lucky they are" - listen to yourself, the next thing your going to talk about is the deserving and underserving poor.

For the record, Hibernian football club was founded by working class people who at times were derided as 'militants', if you look at their strong relationship with the emeging trade union movement we know were their loyalties lay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green Mikey

What a ridiculous statement about a football, religious and political divides should have no place in sport. How is it difficult to be a Hibs supporter and right wing? How in any way do Hibs represent a left wing institution?

Your post is full of unfounded statements anmd sweeping generalisations:

People who oppose BA strike action = reactionary tories
Trade unionists = salt of the earth
All right wingers = vermin, selfish self seeking apologists - detestable

---

To answer your question, read:

Bruce, S, No Pope of Rome: Anti-Catholicism in Modern Scotland (John Donald, Edinburgh, 1985).

Devine, T M, Irish immigrants in Scottish Society in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Free Press, Edinburgh, 1991).

Holford, J, Reshaping Labour - Organisaion, Work and Politics: Edinburgh in the Great War and After, (Polygon, London,1988).

MacDougall I, Essays on scottish Labour History, (Polygon, London, 1979).

Pellings, H, Popular Politics and Society in Late Victorian Britain (McMillan, London, 1968).

Walker, W, "Irish immigrants in Scotland:Their Priests, Politics and Parochial life, Historical Journal, 15 (2) (1972).

Pellings offers a wonderful overview, I was tempted to quote my own book chapters but that would have been both pompous and pretentious and as I am frequently guilty of this, I can't give any more fuel to opponents.

I don't want to be brutal but syntax and interpretation are different things and without being impertinent you place the emphasis. I offered a clearly stated opinion you seem to be confuse this with a stated fact. However, subsequent post have confirmed that many are Tories, notably SiMar.

Finally, I leave you to ponder Bill shankly, again he answers your question, "The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It's the way I see football, the way I see life".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

"How lucky they are" - listen to yourself, the next thing your going to talk about is the deserving and underserving poor.

For the record, Hibernian football club was founded by working class people who at times were derided as 'militants', if you look at their strong relationship with the emeging trade union movement we know were their loyalties lay.

---

And owned by a greedy Capatilist Knight of the Realm who has donated funds to the Conservative Party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

Again Simon at times all you seem to do is expose your ignorance and poor understanding of syntax and grammar, 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 your 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 one 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".

."[/I]

---

Isn't it a bit wrong to criticise someone for their "poor understanding of syntax and grammar", when your own spelling is so poor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Isn't it a bit wrong to criticise someone for their "poor understanding of syntax and grammar", when your own spelling is so poor?

---

This fella writes books. He's usually got an editor to check his stuff. He's flying solo on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibee

:agree: I would not be pleased if I had paid hundreds of pounds on a holiday months in advance, really looking forward to it and then a week beforehand, I hear that the airline I'm flying with is going on strike. :bitchy:.

---

I wouldn`t either, but I won`t be one of those unhappy punters, because after a few years of having some kind of blood-boiling balls-up on absolutely every single occasion I flew with BA, I made a conscious decision never to fly with them ever again. Ever.

Thus, as I leave for my honeymoon on Monday, it will be with a positive frame of mind, as that airline will not be playing what would be an inevitably incompetent or destructive role in my plans.

My point being, I am pretty convinced that a good deal of the general trouble that BA find themselves in right now, is of their own making: utter all-round pish and disdainful treatment of their paying customers on countless occasions that I have personally experienced and witnessed to name just one reason.

Paying customers always have a choice. As a result of my choice to avoid BA, I know I have saved myself an enormous amount of hassle and grief. I don`t know about the strike, but I do think that BA are a rotten company.

GG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corrie greens

And owned by a greedy Capatilist Knight of the Realm who has donated funds to the Conservative Party.

---

No one ownes abstract or the clubs soul, Farmer is merely a proprietor and for the record he has donated at one time or another to all the major political parties in Scotland.

---------- Post added at 12:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksaltire

This fella writes books. He's usually got an editor to check his stuff. He's flying solo on here.

---

Well observed and I really do mean that! It's not editors but proof readers who save our bacon - wonderful people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Isn't it a bit wrong to criticise someone for their "poor understanding of syntax and grammar", when your own spelling is so poor?

---

You are correct, I edited the previous one when you were posting to remove grammar. However, the misquoting is irksome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Green Goblin

I leave for my honeymoon on Monday, GG

---

Congratulations, I hope you both have a good time. Apologises for being of topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

To answer your question, read:

Bruce, S, No Pope of Rome: Anti-Catholicism in Modern Scotland (John Donald, Edinburgh, 1985).

Devine, T M, Irish immigrants in Scottish Society in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Free Press, Edinburgh, 1991).

Holford, J, Reshaping Labour - Organisaion, Work and Politics: Edinburgh in the Great War and After, (Polygon, London,1988).

MacDougall I, Essays on scottish Labour History, (Polygon, London, 1979).

Pellings, H, Popular Politics and Society in Late Victorian Britain (McMillan, London, 1968).

Walker, W, "Irish immigrants in Scotland:Their Priests, Politics and Parochial life, Historical Journal, 15 (2) (1972).

Pellings offers a wonderful overview, I was tempted to quote my own book chapters but that would have been both pompous and pretentious and as I am frequently guilty of this, I can't give any more fuel to opponents.

I don't want to be brutal but syntax and interpretation are different things and without being impertinent you place the emphasis. I offered a clearly stated opinion you seem to be confuse this with a stated fact. However, subsequent post have confirmed that many are Tories, notably SiMar.

Finally, I leave you to ponder Bill shankly, again he answers your question, "The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It's the way I see football, the way I see life".

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McIntosh

You are correct, I edited the previous one when you were posting to remove grammar. However, the misquoting is irksome.

---

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

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.

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.