TravelingForMiles.com may receive commission from card issuers. Some or all of the card offers that appear on TravelingForMiles.com are from advertisers and may impact how and where card products appear on the site. TravelingForMiles.com does not include all card companies or all available card offers.
Some links to products and travel providers on this website will earn Traveling For Miles a commission that helps contribute to the running of the site. Traveling For Miles has partnered with CardRatings for our coverage of credit card products. Traveling For Miles and CardRatings may receive a commission from card issuers. Opinions, reviews, analyses & recommendations are the author’s alone and have not been reviewed, endorsed, or approved by any of these entities. For more details please see the disclosures found at the bottom of every page.
It’s no secret that we’re in the midst of the biggest crisis the airline industry has ever seen so it’s no surprise that a large number of airlines are currently taking significant measures to protect their business. One such airline is British Airways and the measures that British Airways is taking have led the airline into direct conflict with a key part of its workforce – the cabin crew.
I’m not going to get into the minutiae or the details of what British Airways is proposing as they’re not relevant to the discussion I’m setting out – all that’s really key to starting off this discussion are the following facts:
- British Airways cabin crews are divided into multiple “fleets” and sub-fleets with the crews in each fleet working under very different pay scales and conditions. Crew members who joined the airline before 1997 are, generally speaking, paid best, while those joining from 2010 onwards are paid worst.
- British Airways is suggesting that it will need to make up to 12,000 staff redundant if the business is to survive the current crisis (link)
- British Airways is proposing substantial pay cuts for all front line staff with some cabin crew seeing their earnings cut by over 50% (link)
That’s the situation as it stands and, if you’re viewing the scenario with no real understanding of the history of the airline and its management, you could be forgiven for thinking that what’s being proposed is simply the airline being very upfront with what has to be done to ensure its survival. In reality, things aren’t that simple.
First, allow me to add a bit of history to the discussion:
The reason why cabin crew who joined British Airways from 2010 onwards are on noticeably lower pay than their longer-serving colleagues is that, in 2009/2010, the airline failed to win a pay & conditions dispute with existing cabin crew members so it created a new “fleet” (“mixed fleet”) to allow it to employ all new cabin crew on contracts that are considerably less favorable than the contracts under which the legacy crews operate.
Ever since then it has been a key mission of British Airways management to do whatever it can to encourage legacy crews to accept lower pay and worse conditions or, better yet, to have them leave. Management has long seen the British Airways legacy crews as a cost center that needs culling.
With that little bit of history in mind, let’s now turn to what British Airways is trying to do at this moment in time – it’s attempting to cut jobs and lower pay across the board with the longer serving cabin crew being among the hardest hit. That’s a fact that no one appears to be trying to dispute.
People defending these move are generally using the following two arguments to justify the proposals:
- These are highly unusual times and the airline is simply doing what it has to do to ensure its survival.
- The legacy cabin crew contracts are noticeably out of alignment with current pay rates so it’s understandable that management wants to impose significant cuts.
People making these arguments are missing two very key points.
Point 1
The idea that British Airways needs to make such dramatic and permanent cuts to cabin crew pay doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
At the very beginning of this crisis back in March, IAG (British Airways’ parent company) was happily telling anyone who would listen that it had over €9bn in cash and untapped loan facilities (link) and, since then, Willie Walsh (CEO of IAG) has told the press that British Airways does not need government aid to survive (link). He repeated that assertion as recently as 8 days ago when giving evidence to a UK parliamentary committee so, presumably, it’s true (link).
If British Airways can do without government handouts and has access to as much liquidity as its parent company claims (which is more liquidity than any other global airline), it’s hard to believe that it’s in such a desperate situation that it needs to make the dramatic cuts it’s proposing.
Temporary cuts would be understandable (although we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the UK government’s furlough scheme is currently paying a substantial portion of British Airways’ payroll costs) but what British Airways is proposing isn’t temporary. Far from it. The airline isn’t suggesting that cabin crew take temporary cuts until the travel world returns to a semblance of normality, it’s suggesting that all cabin crew should accept pay and conditions that are, essentially, a little worse than the conditions that the “mixed fleet” crew members are offered.
This has nothing to do with survival. If it was all about survival British Airways would be feasting on the cheap, low-interest loans the UK government is more than happy to provide. What British Airways management is trying to do is to renegotiate the cabin crew contracts that it has long wanted to rip up and it’s using the current crisis as an excuse to do just that.
Willie Walsh can’t have it both ways: Either he lied to the markets when he said that IAG has €9bn in liquidity and that British Airways doesn’t need a bailout (I’m reasonably sure that would constitute securities fraud) or the airline isn’t in a situation which requires such drastic measures.
Point 2
Anyone arguing that British Airways legacy cabin crew contracts are out of line with current pay rates never seems to mention how profitable the airline is. In the 2019 financial year, British Airways posted an operating profit of £1.92 billion (~$2.34bn) according to a presentation made to investors (link)…
…so the airline doesn’t appear to be doing particularly badly with the cabin crew contracts as they are.
If British Airways can make this much profit with cabin crew pay and conditions as they are, why is there a need to make drastic and permanent cuts to pay and conditions? Why not ask cabin crew to accept cuts that will last 12 – 18 months (to see the airline through the worst part of this crisis) and then return them to the contracts they were on?
I have no idea if cabin crew are being paid more then the current market rate and I have no interest in speculating how much anyone else should be earning, but I don’t understand why some people are so keen to benchmark salaries to the lowest common denominator. So what if other airlines are paying less (and I don’t know that they are)? Most other airlines aren’t making anywhere near as much money as British Airways (and that’s despite their supposedly “overpaid” cabin crews) so why should the airline be benchmarking salaries to them?
As the financials show, British Airways is by far and away the biggest contributor to IAG profits and since 2015 IAG has performed so well that it has been able to return €4.4bn (~$4.82bn) to shareholders in dividends and share buy-backs…so why the need to decimate long-term pay?
Note: the figure of €4.4bn would have been considerably higher had IAG not been in the process of trying to buy Air Europa.
I’d understand the fixation with cutting long-term staff costs if we were discussing an airline whose performance was bad, whose cash reserves were low, and whose existence was in doubt…but none of that applies here. If an airline is capable of making billions in profits with its existing salary structure (profits that have, generally speaking, been increasing year on year) wouldn’t it be fair to say that salaries don’t need to be tampered with?
Bottom Line
Yes, we’re living through “unprecedented times” (the most overused phrase of 2020) but that doesn’t mean that all actions that are taken now need to be long-term and permanent. If British Airways was proposing short-term measures to get itself through the toughest months of the current crisis it would be hard for anyone to complain…but that’s not what the airline is proposing. What is being proposed is clearly very permanent.
British Airways is one of the most profitable airlines in the world and, by its own admission, it doesn’t need government aid. That makes the cuts it’s proposing impossible to justify and, when examined closely, it makes them little more than a cynical and opportunistic ploy to achieve what the airline failed to achieve just over a decade ago. That’s wrong, and on so many different levels.
I don’t understand why people are talking about this.
WE SHUT DOWN THE WORLD ECONOMY!!
Did you people not think there were going to be consequences?
30 million people in the USA alone lost their jobs.
What makes you think Flight Attendants are special and deserve to keep theirs?
Guys, there are massive, years and potentially decades long repercussions to what we did to our economies.
There isn’t a free lunch here, for anyone. Everyone will suffer now.
That’s just the truth.
Read it again. British Airways is hugely profitable. The point is there is no reason for people to lose their jobs – only Walsh’s spite.
Sorry but this is a terrible article and reads like something written by a left wing activist!
BA have made profit in recent years but they’ve also struggled during previous market downturns. The legacy contracts are out of date, there are huge differences between the new and old crews doing the same jobs (and you rarely hear the new crews morning and bitching about their company like the older crews do!)
BA is mainly focussed at the business market and will be heavily affected in the next couple of years, this is a chance to balance the contracts (not pay lower than the new crew contracts as stated above!) some staff will be better off, some will be worse off and some will sadly lose their jobs!
JAMES Wilson, You obviously don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about and probably work at waterside BA headquarter or are à greedy shareholder. We’re not talking about the cabin crew only but the entire 45000 workforce forced to live on a contract that offers no protection and offers not enough money to live in the london area. And the new mix fleet cabin crew are outraged at this new contract that DOES lower their earnings considerably. BA will survive this TEMPORARY crisis and WILL make billions again in the next 2 years. So keep your ignorant comments and show respect the human lives that are going to be destroyed by greed from a company that has 10 BILLIONS in cash reserve. This is the revenge of a greedy management led by a monstrous sociopath name willie Walsh, who is going to retire doing what he’s been trying to do for the last 15 years. He won’t go before his goal his achieved. And it’s not about money. It’s about power. Think of the state of the national airline once he’s gone. It will be a ruin on so many levels. But he doesn’t care as he will be gone with millions in the bank and and as he said without shame to the transport comitee: “proud of what I’ve done”
What a disgrace of a human being. Like you are Mr Wilson.
Sadly it seems you don’t have your facts straight. How is it justifiable to cut someone’s salary by 50% and tell them if you don’t need them you can drop them for a couple of months on no pay and call them back when you need them. They have lives and families and have built them around the salary they have been on. Some of them for more than 30/40 years. They have mortgages to pay. Do they all just sell their houses because it’s fair what BA do? I’m not saying it’s right that mixed fleet earn less money but they joined knowing what their salary was. There is a huge difference. With a 50% pay cut I would lose my home and I doubt in this market I could even sell it and if I could it would be at a loss. For a company with such large profits that’s unjust!!
No, BA are not proposing to balance contracts. All staff will take reductions and poorer ts&cs. They are squeezing every contract far below the levels required by their financial condition and they are taking brutal advantage of the situation.
Could not agree more…very self serving.
Thank you x
And you’re exactly right
How about you loose your job!
You should also ask if there would be any profits there if all the crew had the same pay and t&c of the “legacy” fleets? MF crew is less than half the operating crew.
The World have changed. Everywhere airlines are either filling for bankruptcy or restructuring in order to be competitive and at least stay floating until the economy recovers
Not to mention that it is discriminatory that within the same company staff doing exactly the same job, most of the times even better, and earning 1/3 of others?
In the current reality of the world most of us will have to give several steps back in order to guarantee structured future ahead.
And this is reality!
Three points:
1) No one is saying that a few steps back shouldn’t be taken – I’ve already said that temporary measures would be more than understandable. You appear to be conveniently forgetting that in your attempt to make a point.
2) It’s not the fault of the legacy crews if British Airways is doing something you (but not the law) consider discriminatory.
3) Why aren’t you asking if BA would be in the incredibly strong position it’s in now if it wasn’t for all the long-serving staff (and I’m not just referencing the crews)?
This was a tactic by Mr Walsh to divide and conquer. This does not just apply to cabin crew this has been something that has gone on throughout each and every department within BA!
And they would gladly if they were actually offered that option but they aren’t. From speaking to many friends they would accept enforced part time contracts until things recover over pay cuts and redundancies but there is no fair alternative offered so they will be forced out by the measures taken.
Reality is not the one where your vision is. I am sorry to say, but look outside this island and see what’s happening worldwide. Who would say that Emirates is making redundant 30,000 of its workforce and anticipate the retirement of its A380 fleet? But it’s happening. TAP maybe one of the few other airlines with legacy contracts still, as been ordered by the European Commission to make restructure (same as BA) or it won’t have a bailout.
Legacy was sustainable once (a while ago) when flying was a glamorous act that few could afford.
The present and the future is budget airlines , they’re here and they didn’t need restructure as they’re already on a competitive coast basis, BA in order to survive the dark future ahead for aviation will have to do it too.
People have choices, either stay accepting the same pay as others and do the same work or step back, do something else in life and let the thousands of crew, already unemployed (already trained ready to fly) to have their jobs.
Again I say this is Reality and the new normal
Your comments are conveniently overlooking one rather important fact – none of the airlines you cite make anywhere near the amount of money that British Airways makes (TAP makes a loss while BA makes approx £2bn operating profit) so you’re not even close to comparing like with like.
You say that legacy crew are unsustainable but you have no evidence to back this up. BA’s profits are the things most airline CEOs can only dream about and they have been made with all the legacy contracts in place. I’ll ask you once again, outside of short term cuts that may be needed to weather this crisis, where’s the justification for permanent cuts?
TAP doesn’t have a low cost base fleet, BA does, profits are almost impossible in an airline in this days with high cost workforce, low number of aircrafts (circa 80) how can you even try to compare the profitability of two so different companies who have just in common the old high pay contracts and T&C?
Let’s just leave it here as we’d have to agree to disagree.
Again this is reality and it’s happening
Are you reading what you’re typing?
1) You used TAP as an example of an airline where legacy contracts don’t work in an attempt to explain why BA shouldn’t have legacy fleet contracts and now you’re saying that I shouldn’t be comparing the two!
2) You say that “profits are almost impossible in an airline in this days” when British Airways (complete with legacy contracts) has been making billions in profits.
I’m more than prepared to believe that many (most) airlines probably cannot afford old-style legacy contracts but the one huge flaw in your argument is the very real fact that British Airways can clearly afford the legacy contracts because it has been making more money than just about any other airline in the world with such contracts in place.
Again, I’ll ask you this: Where’s your evidence that British Airways cannot afford the legacy crew (long-term)?
Luis you need to be very careful what you write with regards to some of your comments about BA crew on WWW. Get you facts right as someone like yourself have who has been cabin crew for a very short time.You should focus your feelings on supporting fellow BA crew and other staff looking at losing their jobs. Oh and let’s not forget your not immune from redundancy. These proposals affect all crews. Your comment “let the thousands of crew, already unemployed (already trained ready to fly) to have their jobs” what planet are you on. Unacceptable comment
Wrong Brian I’m in the industry since 1970 then I did other things in life and I return to aviation.
I support what is the correct thing for me to support
Thank you for the advise though
Thank you for a frank and balanced opinion on the issue as it stands. My wife is “worldwide” cabin crew and regardless of present World economics, BA are aquiting themselves very badly over how they handle this with their usual “bad news at 5pm on a Friday” approach.
Well done Ziggy for your thought out responses, unlike Luis and the knee-jerk statements.
Another point that needs adding, Legacy fleet on average have served 25 years at least, their wage is higher because of all the years that their pay increases with inflation. So in essence, all the pay increases that were authorised for the past multiple decades is being thrown out why give a pay increase in line with inflation, if a few decades down the line you’re going to cut it all away. Great reward for staying loyal.
Where’s yours that can do?
The answer for your arguments are already explained in my upper reply
We know almost for sure (due to very credible projections) that aviation sector won’t be back where it was before 2023, that’s 3 years of a very slow recovering.
Whilst an airline like BA had an alternative to make profits with good management and control, with a relatively cheap fleet to run the operation both LH and SH and that’s where most of the profit came from
Whilst they could afford to sustain the unsustainable they did. Unfortunately the World have totally change and the company either adapt themselves to the new normal or the 7, 8, 9 or even 10Bm won’t last one year.
In case you don’t feel that I’ve answered specially to your answer (“where’s your evidence that BA cant afford the legacy crew in the long term”), please just look at the world now, the very low expectations for a economy recover anytime soon, and all the other points I’ve already mentioned about the differences between pre and after millennium in which concerns to fly, who used to fly then, how many airlines plus the new budget ones, etc etc.
Sincerely I don’t have any point else to mention to you, it’s all Cristal clear in my comments if you disagree, it’s fine. It’s ok to disagree you made your point I made mine, and this is democracy. People who would read this comments will agree with either of us, one of us, none of us and that’s ok
He have to stop moaning over things we can’t get back and hands on, in what we still can do
Cheers
Leaving aside the rather obvious fact that you haven’t answered my questions let alone given any proof to back up your assertion that legacy contracts are unsustainable (allowing for a short-term cut to help the airline weather the crisis)…let’s get some cards on the table:
I have no link to British Airways other than the fact that I occasionally fly with the airline and hold BAEC status. What’s your connection to the airline?
ziggy you managed to explain in the most correct and exhaustive way what happening at the moment in the company. Thank you The fact people are missing here is that BA has 10billions cash and a 33 billion credit line, all achieved with the contracts in place. Thank you
It’s clear Ziggy, you have never run a business.
Having 9Billion in the bank is a pretty meaningless number.
What if it was 10Billion, would it change anything?
Or 20Billion?
Or 1Billion, but no debt.
Or 2Billion, and some debt.
Nope.
We turned off the world economy. Demand for air travel tanked to zero, and all the media are screaming that it won’t come back for years.
Any astute businessman will cut costs ASAP in the face of a crisis like this.
You don’t sit around for months and years at full pay saying ‘no worry, I have money in the bank’
EVERY business in the world has made deep cuts to keep cash on hand to keep their businesses afloat.
I own a business in the USA and part of one in the UK.
We have cut deeply – even though we have cash in the bank
—
If you had $100,000 in the bank. And someone said, ‘you won’t get paid for 3 years, but, all your bills will still be due’
Would you just sit there? Do nothing?
Keep spending at the rate you did?
Of course not. You would cut spending ASAP.
So, if it’s $100,000 or $9Billion, it’s the same thing.
British Airways is cutting massively, because our government shut down the motor of the world.
The actions to lockdown citizens will be far reaching and last for likely a decade.
If you fail to understand actions -> consequences… well, then no one will have any pity on you.
You are missing the KEY part of this, and so are most people in the world who demanded ‘SAFETY – LOCK US INDOORS’
and now demand ‘BUT, WE WANT FULL PAY, AND NORMAL JOBS TOO!’
You can’t have it both ways boss. We made the wrong call as a global society, and now it will come home to roost by ruining tens if not hundreds of millions of lives – so old people could live for another 3 months and die of something else.
Who said do nothing? You’re making a classic strawman argument to suit your needs.
If you read what I wrote (presumably you have) I said that cuts to see the airline through to the other side of this crisis would be hard to argue with but, on the grounds that BA is clearly very profitable with legacy contracts under normal circumstances, why is the airline making all these cuts permanent?
There hasn’t been the slightest suggestion from BA that it’s willing to propose temporary measures and yet temporary measures would appear to be the most obvious equitable solution….that’s asssuming that the only motivation is the survival of the airline and not simply to cull staff the airline has wanted to cull for over a decade.
Thank you Ziggy,
For your understanding of the article.Especially as you have no connection to the airline.Although it states clearly the situation between the different fleets and the company’s cash position,to my mind it’s clearly lost in translation to some?
That’s exactly the all point George.
It’s delusional to even think that things could be changed just for a recover period and go back to what is dated uncompetitive and not acceptable for this days and times ahead
It’s disappointing that a blogger that writes a public opinion article, do not accept to be challenged and do not read totally the comments of others before firing up on them again and again, if a blog exists, it’s because they have readers, therefore if and when needed they should be addressed with some respect
To be clear I am cabin crew for BA, and most probably this restructure will make me redundant as I’ve just been with the company for the past 3 years, when I left another UK historic airline 6 month before they went into administration, but so what? I will move on and do something else, my only concern is that this is the job I love to do, but in order to make a living I can do a lot of other jobs.
I am 100% publicly backing up BA proposal in order to survive and consolidate its future even if I might not be a part of it
Louis, I’m more than happy to be challenged (it’s why your comments keep getting posted) but while you are great at making sweeping statements you’re equally great at not being able to defend a single one of them.
You compare British Airways to airlines they cannot be compared to, you call things “uncompetitive” when British Airways has proved itself able to make incredible profits with the very things you’re calling uncompetitive, and you’re happy to make statements about what will and will not be viable at the end of this crisis without one shred of proof to back up what you’re saying.
From the very first comment you made, you set out your belief that legacy crew contracts are unfair and, based on your latest comment, it’s more than a little obvious what your motivation for this belief is…and it has nothing to do with BA’s profitability.
You claim that I’m not giving you enough “respect” well, with respect, I’ve given you more than enough of a platform to have your say and to persuade me and anyone reading that you have a point. You only have yourself to blame that you’ve not done a particulalry good job of this and, now that your motivation for your comments is clearer, it’s unlikely that you’ll have any greater success going forward.
BA is not a government department to provide generous salaries. It’s answerable to shareholders and it’s objective is to maximise profits. End of. Harsh it may be, but people need to move on to other companies or industries if they think the wages are low.
I wouldn’t travel BA given a choice, but I will keep buying BA shares.
BA / IAG has accepted £300 million from the UK government through the vehicle they have set up to fund companies that are suffering as a result of the lock down imposed by the government. They have kept it very quiet, it was announced as part of recent company reports.
Well reasoned points, Ziggy. BA’s antics are frankly pretty pathetic. What I would suggest is that the entire board of directors and all upper management be required to personally illustrate how you can live on the same 24,000 per year for a year by doing so themselves, only being permitted to spend that much (after taxes of course). If that pay really is acceptable for career employees it should be fine for the executives for a year as well.
Have you read it all the way through..I think not! Its appalling..cabin Crew have dedicated their life to BA. Willie w…you have no conscience. Appalling way to treat all staff.
Very interesting all your comments.
Especially the one from guy named George “so old people could live for another 3 months and die of something else”.Evidently, this guy have no older family members or have not seen any loved one or close friend die of coronavirus.
The whole World was caught by surprise with a new disease that suddenly change our way of life.
Totally understandable that companies will need to re-adjust the same way we all will need to do it in order to survive.
What is not fair and it’s the main problem I see Globally, is the lack of honesty and real financial help from those who control all these big corporations in each Country and Worldwide (airlines,cruise lines,financial institutions,pharmaceuticals,communications,energy.. and goverments.) who literally control our poor honest, harwork decent poor way of living while they toast in a virus free environment for a “well deserved” yearly bonus of 20 million dollars.
Time to smell the coffee.Things must change up there.
Luis….. If you happen to be working for the same company ten years after joining then I assume you will be turning down any future pay increase. Giving your bonus back and offer to work longer hours each year. Is that what you plan to do?
Guessing you would prefer to go back one hundred years and forget about all those who pioneered for workers rights, living wages etc. It’s called progress.
Perhaps Cuba would suit you better than the UK. Just saying.
Richard… unfortunately progress is a word that doesn’t apply at all to the current, tragic situation that the all world is going trough! Tourism, travel, leisure in general will go trough unprecedented times, and obviously the need of restructure and adapt to the huge challenge and reality ahead is much needed if companies want to survive. I feel sorry for what is happening to people (me included) but as mentioned before these are unprecedented times, no ash cloud, no 9/11 can even be used as example. Currently, we see every day, news of another airline that went into administration, or made redundant in average 30% of their work force, so even though BA have been for the past few years profitable and it’s owner IAG group have whatever Bn in cash or in assets easily transformed into cash that doesn’t mean that it is imune to the dark times ahead, and therefore they need urgently to remodel the all operation and as we all know the principal point in order to achieve that is obviously with cost cutting wherever possible. The legacy, within the company is a huge part of the operational cost and it’s therefore one of the main targets, also because it’s not competitive anymore when the company can easily get people doing the same for 1/3 of the cost. This is reality and sincerely I can’t envisage any other way for the company to try and keep afloat and eventually survive and in some years from now eventually (again) be back on track for profit (which until now they’ve normally shared part of it with the workforce)
I am sorry that there will be redundancies, I may well be one of them, but the world is different today than what it was in the end of 2019.
I had mentioned before that I wouldn’t come back here to make my point anymore as I had already said all that I needed to say, of course in my view. I respect different views, as far as they are aligned with the current reality.
Regarding Cuba, well I never say never for now and whilst I still have a job in the UK this is the place I’ve chosen to leave, but hey, who knows? One thing is for sure I will not stop and quit I will look for other jobs if it comes to that, for now as I mentioned already I do understand and agree with BAs proposal even that it will mean a pay cut or ultimately being made redundant, I stick to my argument.
Farewell
Louis. You are not worth the breath.
Remember it was BA that hired Mixed fleet on the lower pay rates. It has been said in this discussion that it is illegal for employees that do the same or similar jobs to be paid differently. I agree. I guess it was BA acting illegally by hiring cabin crew on lower pay.
No one has been forced to sign a contract without knowing the pay and terms and conditions of employment. It there in the contract. A contract far different to the contract I signed 30 years ago.
I believe all contracts are signed in good faith on both sides.
Trying to quantify what a particular job is worth is pointless. Especially when you would have to go back decades and see how the pay and conditions had been negotiated and ‘agreed’ by both sides.
Any other CEO who follows is welcome to introduce new pay and t&c. Those contracts signed would also be done in good faith but attempting to rip up the contract the are currently legal agreements between both sides is immoral as well as illegal.
A contract is a legal agreement and can only be changed through negotiations and agreements on both sides.
I believe that my Mixed Fleet colleagues should be paid much more than they are currently. Their terms and conditions should also be vastly improved.
They are the future of BA. Only If they can afford to live on their salary.
We should all be looking to move people up to higher salaries when companies are making huge profits.
Then during hard times you will have a workforce happy to do what they can to ensure the survival of the company and their own futures.
Value your employees because they are your best asset.
A great example and one which has clear parallels is KLM.
The one thing that is also being missed is that most legacy crew are coming towards the end of their careers with BA.
As they retire and the Worldwide and Euro Fleets get smaller they become a smaller and smaller cost base.
Willie said to the Select committee that we would not see passengers number of 2019 until at 2023…..!
In 3 years. As you all know BA made €1.9 billion. If we take Willie’s very informed prediction BA will make a big loss this year 2020/2021. Break even 2021/2022. Profit in 2022/23 then Boom 2023 €2 billion.
Jobs will have to go, so why did BA not first look at voluntary redundancies.
We would not be in this position today.
When the pandemic first started we knew the airline industry would be hit first and hardest and it would be the last to recover.
Good leaders find the best way to get through tough times. They should not bully intimidate and alienate its entire workforce.
Many of my legacy colleagues will have no intention now of making any compromises following BAs aggressive and unnecessary approach.
Don’t forget Louis, British Airlines Legacy Crew has made BA what it is today. Their reputation is legendary. BA themselves have been praising Legacy Crew for the last few years. The Customer Scores are proof of this.
BA are rudely pushing aside all the people that have worked 20-40 years, including Engineers, Customer Service, DOMS, Ops, Ticketing, Managers etc. all the people that have made the BA Brand what it is today!
It’s not the cleaning, catering, entertainment that customers feed back … it’s always Crew!
This is the beginning of a downward slide if the Company continues on this path. It will lose Corporate Contracts and valued customers. Flying with BA will not be the same. It’s very sad that the airline is being slowly ripped apart piece by piece.
You left out one very important point in this entitlement mentality post of yours, British airways is not holding a gun to any of their employees heads and making them work there, they could always go look somewhere else for a job, I see lots of signs for McDonald’s hiring if they feel they’re being treated so badly
Everyone’s a free-market conservative until it’s their rear-end on the line – I doubt you’d feel the same way if the roles were reversed. For your sake I hope we never get to find out.
George your comment about “old people” is bang out of line. Get back to me when your mum is laying on her death bed and tell me what you wouldn’t do to keep her alive for 3 more months. Assuming she hasn’t already killed herself when she realise what a disrespectful knobhead she raised. Feckin’ yank.
Richard, Paddy, Ziggy & Jacqui spoke for all of us in BA. Sadly BA is no longer a proud flag carrier but a broken company, with the operating rule of divide and rule. Husband and wife we have worked in aviation for over 40 years, does any one thinks we can be paid the same as Louis who has only worked 3 years and happy to move on to other jobs to earn living?
Forget BA for a second and apply this very odd thinking to everyday life. You have 100 pounds in your wallet, you go into a shop and there are two identical bars of chocolate one priced at 1 pound, one at 2 pounds. Are you saying that just because you have money in your wallet, you would buy one of each bars, not two of the cheaper one? No one commenting here about BA’s money in the bank would pay double if it was their money!
Your analolgy doesn’t work because what’s being discussed doesn’t relate to what BA is doing with new recruits (new purchases, in your analogy) but with existing staff members working under deals previously agreed with management.
Once upon a time airlines hired young men and young ladies to work in a demanding, but exciting and civilised environment. Then the planes got bigger, and the net got cast wider, and those with a political bent saw the opportunity to build careers, their own and those of the crew members, via the power of numbers and the dependency of major capital on its humble operatives. So the legacy terms and conditions were determined by blackmail on one side, and fear on the other. Nothing to do with value or service. And despite efforts at change they have persisted But this crisis has spotlighted how dated and grotesque they actually are. A different industry now leaves no room for luxury terms and conditions, however inured to them their recipients may be.
Right! I’ve said before in earlier posts in here that I wouldn’t comment anymore, but there are things that get on my nerves and I exercise the right of reply and make a different point across
First things first;
@Vitor Silva, what about it? I might loose it I’m one in thousands no special treatment, but whatever outcome I back the BA proposal 100%
@Jake is that all that you have to say “knee jerk comments” that’s your argument where it belongs
@Elio get your facts right. IAG the parent company might have the announced Bn. Will they last long with the current no demand worldwide, of course not, even a blind can see that!
@George, totally agree, people who make a living on easy income wouldn’t be able to relate with this
@Pamela as many workers did (miners, artisans, etc) the difference they shook up and got a life outside their extinguished roles
@Richard Matters, luckily I don’t breath your breath, your a sick man if that’s your argument
@BuildTheTravel exactly
@Mike the mention of same job same pay being considered illegal was referring to a recent court rule where 2 presenters were doing practically the same service and work type to BBC, and getting paid in huge difference, the lower paid one took the matter to court and the judge ruled in is favour as he considered illegal being doing the same work within the same company and getting less pay than the other one. I also expressed that I find the legacy crew from the two legacy fleets, that I feel that they’re totally unbearable by any airline in modern days. I agree they’re coming from an era where aviation was different, low budget carriers were non existent and therefore competition too. In 2010 BA created MF , forward thinking and looking into the future of the industry and in order to stay competitive and with future. Of course all those working already for BA in the “legacy” fleets should at that point that this time would come for them, what I mean is that 10 years all of them had time to make something in order to secure a future however instead of that they took their situation within the company for granted. On a side note if one bothers to investigate, we will find that more than 90% of the “legacy” crew just work in part time for BA, most of them with 33,3% part time which make them work 10 day per month, including day off, reason being what they get payed for that week is good enough for them and as much, if not more than a FT crew from MF. Therefore the future of BA, in order to keep running as a business I am afraid it can not be with contracts and t&c negotiated 30 years ago, the only way forward will be having competitive costs in order to survive this very disturbing reality for the sector.
@Jacqui, I do agree with you that legacy crew has made BA a great airline, if this also apply for what the airline is currently? Well MF operates for 10 years know and have a strong input in that, proof of it are the dashboards. Nothing will be the same, the world won’t be the same, and we’ll have to adapt!
@Dean you’re exactly right and I recall again that the “legacy” crew/fleets had 10 years to prepare for this to happen, either taking a degree, finding other jobs, etc, instead they’d prefer to ignore it and enjoy the caipirinhas in Rio during legacy layovers.
@ Ziggy as I stated before I find your comments somewhat rude, specially when you don’t have valid arguments. It’s not correct for someone who make a living out of this blogs and you advertisers can one day, if you keep doing it, pull of their money
@Bella I can assure you that they didn’t! Unfortunately for you. They might have spoken for the minority upper mentioned. BA is definitely not broken and will keep being the proud flagship airline for the Brits
@Neil again bang on. That’s exactly what is about more and more every day in the modern world and people do it when, just when it suits them.
Your Analogy in this case it’s a mere reality
I am not coming here anymore so this will be my final comment, regardless of your responses
Again I am 100% agreeing with the BA proposal even if i loose my job and won’t be part of its future, I stand by BA and wish the company a safe s prosperous future
Re: “@ Ziggy as I stated before I find your comments somewhat rude, specially when you don’t have valid arguments. It’s not correct for someone who make a living out of this blogs and you advertisers can one day, if you keep doing it, pull of their money”
1) I really couldn’t care less what you think of me or how I come across to you – I realize that may shock you as you appear to think I should but I’m not here trying to be everyone’s friend. It’s also amusing to be called rude by someone who’s happy to see so many people’s livelihoods go down the drain.
2) Just because you don’t consider my arguments valid doesn’t make them invalid. Based on the arguments you’ve attempted to make I’m not entirely sure you understand what my arguments actually are.
3) I do not “make a living” out of this blog. The fact that you think I do, shows just how little you know about the blogging world. It also shows how happy you are to make assumptions that are completely wrong and, fyi, that doesn’t help any of the other points you keep trying to make.
4) I have no idea what the rest of your comment aimed at me means.
You very clearly have a bee in your bonnet about something. I suspect you may be a mixed fleet employee who is annoyed that legacy crews get paid more than you. You may even just be a very bad shill for BA. Frankly, I don’t much care which you are as I don’t have skin in this game…but thanks for commenting nonetheless.
+ ignorant prat you are don’t mind censuring it’s really meant just to you, [redacted by TFM]
Lol! Always funny to watch someone having to resort to name-calling when they don’t get their way – like a little child throwing a tantrum…only a lot more pathetic.
Anyway, congratulations on your last comment on TFM – calling me names isn’t the best idea if you expect to have your say on here. Bye, bye.
Ba not doing anything illegal – enough said
[…] I’ve written about the current conflict between BA management and BA cabin crew in the recent … and I don’t want to go over old ground but, just to set the scene before I move on, here’s the situation: […]
One thing I find is missing from this article is the range of salaries and benefits for cabin crew. I appreciate you may say it doesn’t matter if BA are making such vast profits but, for an industry outsider, it helps to understand how sorry we should feel for cabin crew.