Discussion
I mean that it seems unlikely that a company would intend to restructure to the extent that it needs to shed up to ~1200 pilot jobs, and then be convinced by union consultation that actually it needs to lose ~300 instead. I know the figure quoted in the press is always a maximum, but I think it is likely that a larger than intended number was given as an ‘anchor’. Then, when the real number turns out to be lower, it is framed as a big concession by the company, albeit one which had to be paid for with some employee Ts&Cs reductions.
Realistically though, the cost reduction which could have been achieved by losing 1200 pilots and the corresponding aircraft, cabin crew, maintenance etc, is probably significantly higher than the cost reduction of a percentage being shaved off everyone’s salary. Which kind of suggests that the company never intended to reduce the fleet by that much anyway. At least it does to me.
Realistically though, the cost reduction which could have been achieved by losing 1200 pilots and the corresponding aircraft, cabin crew, maintenance etc, is probably significantly higher than the cost reduction of a percentage being shaved off everyone’s salary. Which kind of suggests that the company never intended to reduce the fleet by that much anyway. At least it does to me.
Edited by Prawo Jazdy on Friday 10th July 08:49
Prawo Jazdy said:
I mean that it seems unlikely that a company would intend to restructure to the extent that it needs to shed up to ~1200 pilot jobs, and then be convinced by union consultation that actually it needs to lose ~300 instead. I know the figure quoted in the press is always a maximum, but I think it is likely that a larger than intended number was given as an ‘anchor’. Then, when the real number turns out to be lower, it is framed as a big concession by the company, albeit one which had to be paid for with some employee Ts&Cs reductions.
Realistically though, the cost reduction which could have been achieved by losing 1200 pilots and the corresponding aircraft, cabin crew, maintenance etc, is probably significantly higher than the cost reduction of a percentage being shaved off everyone’s salary. Which kind of suggests that the company never intended to reduce the fleet by that much anyway. At least it does to me.
Ahhhhhh!Realistically though, the cost reduction which could have been achieved by losing 1200 pilots and the corresponding aircraft, cabin crew, maintenance etc, is probably significantly higher than the cost reduction of a percentage being shaved off everyone’s salary. Which kind of suggests that the company never intended to reduce the fleet by that much anyway. At least it does to me.
Edited by Prawo Jazdy on Friday 10th July 08:49
So in a nutshell ( made up figs)
Company needs to shed 1000
SAYS they need to shed 2000
Negotiates to shed 1000
Company is happy
Union is happy
Standard stuff.
moles said:
If a company come to an agreement with the union over t&c changes do you have any right to individually go against this, resign from the company and then go for unfair dismissal?.
You can try but I don't think you'd get very far, as long as the company can demonstrate that there was a business reason for doing so.Countdown said:
moles said:
If a company come to an agreement with the union over t&c changes do you have any right to individually go against this, resign from the company and then go for unfair dismissal?.
You can try but I don't think you'd get very far, as long as the company can demonstrate that there was a business reason for doing so.TBH - there are jobs being shed all over the place. why the BAS jobs should be held in a different esteem simply because it has "British" in the name ?
7,000 jobs lost iin the North Sea for example : https://www.upstreamonline.com/coronavirus/uk-nort...
7,000 jobs lost iin the North Sea for example : https://www.upstreamonline.com/coronavirus/uk-nort...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/28/b...
BA cabin crew threatening to go on 'immediate' strike.
BA cabin crew threatening to go on 'immediate' strike.
JxJ Jr. said:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/28/b...
BA cabin crew threatening to go on 'immediate' strike.
They have done this far too many times now cost the company a fortune now is the time the company might have looked after loyal employees but those employees have caused previous losses and reduction in retained profits = more pain now for those who think this will simply not be an issue BA cabin crew threatening to go on 'immediate' strike.
Welshbeef said:
now is the time the company might have looked after loyal employees
I don’t quite understand this. I don’t have all the facts, but my understanding is that the company has been adversarial with the employees from the very start, and that has not helped the consultations/negotiations progress.Why would now be the time a company might look after loyal employees?
Edited by Prawo Jazdy on Tuesday 28th July 22:21
JxJ Jr. said:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/28/b...
BA cabin crew threatening to go on 'immediate' strike.
Except they are not.... the article says Mr Mccluskey want to call a ballot to go on strike... this really would be turkeys voting for Christmas if thats what the crew subsequently did. It could destroy his union powerbase at BA forever.BA cabin crew threatening to go on 'immediate' strike.
Welshbeef said:
JxJ Jr. said:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/28/b...
BA cabin crew threatening to go on 'immediate' strike.
They have done this far too many times now cost the company a fortune now is the time the company might have looked after loyal employees but those employees have caused previous losses and reduction in retained profits = more pain now for those who think this will simply not be an issue BA cabin crew threatening to go on 'immediate' strike.
Last time I went on holiday it was a cruise and the flights were part of the package, I wasn't too impressed when it turned out they were with British Airways. I was even less impressed when it turned out they were going to strike on September 9th, 10th and 27th as we were due to fly on the 25th.
Joey Deacon said:
Last time I went on holiday it was a cruise and the flights were part of the package, I wasn't too impressed when it turned out they were with British Airways. I was even less impressed when it turned out they were going to strike on September 9th, 10th and 27th as we were due to fly on the 25th.
Why were you unimpressed about their choice of strike days? Did you want them to strike on the day you were due to fly so you didn't have to fly with them??Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff