BA Cabin Crew To Strike

The planned strike by BA cabin crew staff will go ahead after talks between BA and Unite collapsed today.  This comes after a failed attempted strike over Christmas, which was deemed illegal by a High Court ruling in December, and a pledge from Unite that any strike action would not occur over Easter.

I can’t help but wonder what was going through the minds of those crew members who voted for strike action. It seems completely barmy to me. Last month BA announced a pre-tax loss of £50m, which although an improvement on the £122m loss the year before, is still a long way from being profitable. The cost cutting measures announced by BA which have sparked this row were designed to try and cut this deficit and bring the company back to profitability. Measures the cabin crew have taken particular issue with include cutting cabin crew from 15 to 14 on long-haul flights and a two year pay freeze, as well as proposed measures for new recruits which include dispensing with seniority, promotion on merit and pay equal to the market standard plus 10%.

Forgive me for my lack of sympathy with the crew but these measures seem more than fair, generous even, given the recent recession and the resulting effect it has had on the aviation industry. Bear in mind that a crew of 14 is still above most other airlines and a fair way above the legal minimum of 12 (for a Boeing 747). Had BA wanted to save more they could have cut the crew further; they should be relieved that BA has only knocked 1 member from each flight, not incensed by it.  BA also pays higher salaries than the market average and a pay freeze while the airline recovers seems reasonable.

As for the measures yet to come into effect, the proposed scrapping of the Seniority System is long overdue. Under this system the longer standing cabin crew get first dibs on the flights they want to work on, often earning more than some pilots into the bargain, and causing newer staff to take the unwanted earlier flights to less desirable locations. As for promotion on merit, I’m amazed this has not already been adopted and even more shocked that the cabin crew oppose it.  In what other job would less able workers be promoted above brighter or harder working individuals, simply because they have been there longer? It’s madness and surely increases complacency among the crew; competition is healthy and would help to improve customer service for the airline’s passengers.

This strike will serve only to reverse the company’s partial recovery causing heavier losses, in both the punitive sense and in terms of passengers. And what will the strike achieve? BA has used the time since the ruling on the first planned strikes to retrain hundreds of ground crew and will put the biggest contingency plan in its troubled history into effect over Easter. The airline has pledged to keep 65% of its customers flying, utilising a fleet of chartered jets and a 1,000 strong volunteer cabin crew. The cost of this plan is part of the reason why BA put a weaker option on the table to that offered previously.

Mr Woodley, Unite’s General Secretary, is now demanding that offer back after he failed to get a better deal. But it’s too late: had Unite been more reasonable and accepted that offer earlier, BA would not be struck with the departure of many customers, and increasing losses. Mr Walsh, Chief executive of BA, has said that the threat of strike action has cost the airline £27m and 103,000 passengers. What happens if this strike causes such an exodus of passengers that the national carrier has to call in the administrators? How the cabin crew will rue their greedy demands when they are jobless and broke themselves. Of course Tony Woodley and his chums at Unite won’t be too upset by this as they’ll be keeping their jobs and raking in their six-figure salaries regardless of the outcome of this dispute.

And what of the Government’s efforts to resolve the issue? Well Cameron has branded them “feeble” and added “It is back to the 1970s”, saying that Labour is a "wholly owned subsidiary of the union ... They pick the candidates, they choose the policies, they elect the leader and they have special access to Downing Street”. Cameron is spot on here - of course the same can be said for the Tories.  The difference is that it is donors like Lord Ashcroft controlling the party and its politics rather than the unions. As for Cameron’s quip about the 1970s, continuing his comparison he is surely implying that he is to Thatcher, as Brown is to Callaghan. Back then the unions had brought the country to its knees, and it was Thatcher who crushed their grip on the country to such an extent that they have only recently began to flex their muscles again. I cannot imagine the current Conservative party being anything like as successful in their dealings with the unions, not while Cameron’s in the cockpit.