By: Sky High
- 23rd January 2011 at 14:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We are not pouring vitriol on anyone, but unless there is more support for the contrary view then it will inevitably appear that way. I we disagree with a another member's point of view what are we supposed to do?:confused:
I happen to take a view on this and other similar disputes and that is my view. I am not pouring vitriol an anyone taking the contrary view - just wholeheartedly disagreeing with them.
By: PMN
- 23rd January 2011 at 14:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interflug, a very well thought out reply that makes the point probably better than the rest of us put together. :)
I can assure you now, the pursers most certainly does not sit in a chair and dictate to the others what they have to do!:mad:
Nor do they work anywhere near as hard as they could, which is the key point.
Thanks very much for those kind words of encouragement...it is exactly that confrontational/bullying/offensive kind of attitude that doesn't work or inspire anyone to want to put more effort into their jobs.
How was Sandy in any way confrontational, bullying or offensive in his words? There are certain harsh realities we need to face as adults in life and the prospect of losing our job should economic circumstances change is very much one of them. If you find his words offensive then perhaps a slight change of outlook is required because all he's done is point something out that we all potentially face, regardless of whether we work in aviation, music, for the local council or in Burger King.
By: cloud_9
- 23rd January 2011 at 14:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're inventing scenarios rather than looking at the actual issue in hand logically.
Inventing scenarios now am I...what nonsense, I am actually quoting almost word for word what I say day in, day out to the passengers that I see and deal with!?:mad:
Clealy goes to show just how much contempt you have for people that try to offer you a decent level of service.
By: PMN
- 23rd January 2011 at 14:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A member of staff comes up to you...
"Good morning Mr Nichols, how are you sir, its great to have you onboard today. Did you use our lounge this morning? [await answer] Was everything satisfactory? [again, engages with the customer by allowing them to speak!] Ok sir, well just to let you know that we're anticipating an on-time departure from London this morning, and we're expecting to arrive into ______ [insert desintation of choice!] approx 30mins earlier than scheduled [await reply], is there anything else I can do to assist you today [await reply]. Ok sir, well like I said its a pleasure to have you onboard sir, I hope you have an enjoyable flight with us today, we really appreciate your business and I look forward to seeing you again soon, Goodbye."
Compared to...
"Hello sir, welcome onboard, thanks for travelling with us!".
As I've already said, cabin crew with airlines like BA get time to relax a little during the flight; they're not on their feet absolutely all the time (and incidentally I'm talking about other airlines here who carry one less cabin crew than BA). The simple logic of that says they would in fact have the time to go to each business class passenger and have a brief chat, it would just perhaps mean a little less time sitting around doing nothing.
The situation you mentioned has no need to occur, therefore it was invented.
Clealy goes to show just how much contempt you have for people that try to offer you a decent level of service.
Okay, making your point is fine but don't be patronising. I understand the difference between good service and rubbish service, I also know how many people it takes to offer a good level of service because I've seen it on hundreds of flights with probably 30+ different airlines. I don't need you talking down to me like I don't know the first thing about how any of this works, so please don't.
By: PMN
- 23rd January 2011 at 14:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're being totally unreasonable and denying something that's a very clear straightforward fact. You claim losing one member of crew will directly affect service, but airlines around the world are proving that isn't actually the case and have been doing so for years. Why are you denying something that's such a clear fact? No-one's saying sod customers, what people are saying is there's a more economical way things can run with less cost but still provide the same level of service. Go back and very carefully read Interflug62M's post, what he says isn't opinion or something that can be disputed. Things are changing, and unless BA change with them then there won't be a national airline in the UK for long. What would you rather have, slightly harder working cabin crew or thousands of people out of work because the airline's gone bust? This, sadly, is the reality you need to understand.
By: Sky High
- 23rd January 2011 at 15:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, of course, we would all like to think that is the case, but I suppose one man's adverse personal comment is another man's strongly expressed opinion. Either way I fear this thread is going the way of the previous one where old Cloud9 is at the crease on his own, so I'll retire back to the pavilion and leave others on the field.
By: cloud_9
- 23rd January 2011 at 16:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Things are changing, and unless BA change with them then there won't be a national airline in the UK for long. What would you rather have, slightly harder working cabin crew or thousands of people out of work because the airline's gone bust? This, sadly, is the reality you need to understand.
But BA could/should have changed long before...in fact, when low-cost airlines first came onto the scene. Instead, they blindly chose to think that it/they would be a fad, and that they wouldn't be successful...how wrong they were/still are!? Of course if you strip everything "service" related out of a "service" product, you end up with lower costs, and then you can pass these savings onto customers, but you cannot then realistically expect people to work just as hard to provide a high level of service, when they do not see any kind of appreciation or reward for their efforts. Also, and I fear we're going to end up in a similar situation as we did on the Ryanair thread, just because you like to travel with low-cost airlines because they are cheap and convinenet for you, doesn't mean that everyone does and you have to accept that there are those people who are willing to pay that bit more in return for a better quality service.
The way to look at this is to try and find out how airlines such as Virgin Atlantic managed to change...I'm sure that back in the so-called "old days", their crews were probably overpaid and they had more crew onboard than was necessary, but they have somehow managed to adapt and change to the market and avoid a strike, probably by negotitating and compromising with their staff, which clearly demonstrates that they care far more about their workers than what BA does about theirs!
What I would like to see is both management and crews working in harmony with each other in order to make the company profitable again, and then continuing to do so for many years to come...which is slightly different to what BA appear to want at the moment which is to make super-massive profits...in these extraordinary economic times, why can't they just be intent on making a small profit and looking after a loyal customer base?
Sadly though, until this dispute is resolved, and whilst there is all this bitterness and anamosity on both sides, this is not going to happen.
By: MSR777
- 23rd January 2011 at 16:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, of course, we would all like to think that is the case, but I suppose one man's adverse personal comment is another man's strongly expressed opinion. Either way I fear this thread is going the way of the previous one where old Cloud9 is at the crease on his own, so I'll retire back to the pavilion and leave others on the field.
And that would be a great loss to the debate as a whole. As I said in my last post, everybody on here, irrespective of their position on this issue must realize that this dispute is part of something very much bigger. I sincerely mean no disrespect to any other member here, but when I see so much bickering and arguments about 'how many cabin crew members there are, how much time to I get to say 'hello' to each passenger etc, it really makes me despair. cloud-9 I'm sorry, but I do question the importance of the factors that you highlight. To the vast majority of airline passengers today, with the possible exception of the first/business class people, those aspects are, by and large, of secondary importance. The rise of the God awful 'LoCo' carriers are testimony to that. Your own writings ' sod customers, sod a decent level of service' etc would seem to illustrate my point, in this mega competitive age, these standards, so dear to you, and rightly so, have had their day for most travelers. Nowadays the bottom line is how cheaply can I get my bum on that seat and get to where I want to go , and thats it. When I first went into aviation in 1981, those type of attributes were still very important, sadly they are no longer so. That is an example of the passenger and their demands and priorities changing, any 'legacy' airline with the will to survive will be aware of this change and adapt accordingly. If the employees don't cooperate, then IMO, all bets are off as to where theses airlines and their employees and managers will end up. For employees in those carriers with unchanged objectives and practices, it could well be the dole queue.:(
PMN, thanks for your comment, but there are members more capable than I.
cloud_9 I hope we will still be on speaking terms;)
By: PMN
- 23rd January 2011 at 16:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What I would like to see is both management and crews working in harmony with each other in order to make the company profitable again, and then continuing to do so for many years to come.
I think it's fair to say is what everyone wants to see, but even if/when BA pull through all this they then have to attract the customers back who went elsewhere because BA cabin crew couldn't be trusted to not strike. Once people go elsewhere it can be incredibly difficult to get them back and this is the reason the strikes are so damaging. Sure, they're hurting the management but they're also hurting customers which in turn ultimately hurts themselves in a big way. I'm not the smartest guy on the planet but I'm reasonably intelligent, and with all the will in the world and however I look at this situation I just can't rationalise it. I'm not saying BA aren't without fault, but such repeated strike action seems counter-intuitive and simply lacking in basic logic to me. In fact it's a spectacular example of 'shooting yourself in the foot' or 'cutting your nose off to spite your face'. Wikipedia describes the last saying as:
"an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem. "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the source of one's anger".
I can think of no truer saying for this unfortunate situation.
By: cloud_9
- 23rd January 2011 at 17:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
cloud-9 I'm sorry, but I do question the importance of the factors that you highlight. To the vast majority of airline passengers today, with the possible exception of the first/business class people, those aspects are, by and large, of secondary importance. The rise of the God awful 'LoCo' carriers are testimony to that. Your own writings ' sod customers, sod a decent level of service' etc would seem to illustrate my point, in this mega competitive age, these standards, so dear to you, and rightly so, have had their day for most travelers. Nowadays the bottom line is how cheaply can I get my bum on that seat and get to where I want to go , and thats it.
cloud_9 I hope we will still be on speaking terms;)
Interflug, I have found your posts to be very interesting and thought-provoking indeed, and may I congratulate you on that...of course, we're still on speaking terms!:)
The only and real reason that I appear to put up such a fight is because I am so passionate about customer service standards...I live and breath it day in, day out, and I feel an imense amount of personal satisfaction when I am told that I am doing a good job, or when I open a letter (or should I say e-mail...who writes letters thesedays!;)) that says thank-you or congratulates me on offering a great service...it is what inspires me to continue doing what I do, and I do think that some people just don't understand or appreciate this.
I totally agree with you about the fact that the low-cost carriers have brought about these changes in the industry and the attitudes of people, and I do think that its a great shame that people's attitudes towards air travel have changed to the point that it now results in "how cheaply can I get my bum on that seat"...or more so, from the airlines perspectives, "how much can we get out of the passenger, seeing as we only charged £5 for his/her seat".
The truth of the matter is I am going through a bit of a rough patch at the moment because I happen to represent a well-known US airline (Continental), which is merging with United. Continental obviously prides itself on providing an International Concierge service to its Business Class customers, whereas United offers something similar but it is no-way near as good as ours, but as and when the merger nears completion, a decison will ulitmately be made as to whether CO's Concierge service will survive or not...and I have a hunch that it may not survive, simply because it is a "cost" in some people's eyes that could be gotten rid of in order to provide a slightly bigger profit than normal.
Flying maybe just isnt meant to be as "fun" or as "exciting" anymore as it once used to be, and perhaps I should begin looking for a new job because at this rate, I could be on the dole queue myself pretty soon!:(
By: PMN
- 23rd January 2011 at 19:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do think that some people just don't understand or appreciate this.
Some don't understand it, but you really shouldn't assume that people don't understand something just because they disagree with you (which is the impression you've very much given here). I more than understand being passionate about something; I started getting involved in music over 18 years ago and even now 1000+ concerts down the line I'm every bit as passionate as I was when I started, and I mean that. It still brings me immense joy and pleasure to be in a room of any size and see people enjoying a performance I'm a part of in some way. I'm going through a bad patch at the moment as well (which has actually lasted over a year - hence my attitude of just getting on with it and trying to look at things in a clear, straightforward way), but regardless of how bad things may be nothing dampens the passion I have for what I do. If I'm not listening to music I'm playing it, if I'm not playing it I'm mixing it, if I'm not doing one of those things then I'm probably asleep. It's a tremendously important thing to me, and regardless of how bad things may be that won't change, so yeah, I do get it and you don't need to explain how passionate you are. That's already clear and others are equally passionate, but just because someone disagrees doesn't make them any less passionate. I know I'm talking about music and the subject of the thread is aviation but I think passion's a pretty universal feeling.
Anyway, all that aside it's never good to see people going through bad times so I wish you all the best. Fingers crossed things work out well for you.
By: cloud_9
- 23rd January 2011 at 19:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps, as you said earlier Paul, it is the fact that maybe I just get a bit "too passionate" for my own good?:o
I try to have a philosophy of always aiming high, because if you don't achieve what you initially set out to achieve then you can't be that disappointed with what you do achieve in the end. In theory this works and maybe I just try to kid myself into beliveing this, but in reality the truth is that I often find that when things are going well, they go very well for me...and when things go bad, they go seriously really bad...and its sometimes really hard to dig yourself out. Worse thing is though, it comes and goes, in peaks and troughs, although the dips usually happen alot quicker than the rises up. I'd certainly be very interested to know how to adapt to your "just get on with it and try to look at things in a clear, straightforward way" of thinking. PM me if you can help me with this.:)
Anyways, to try and get us back onto the aviation related theme here, might I ask for people's opinions on what they think should happen at BA now, because I am sure none of us would like to see it go under, and it is quite obvious that changes need to be made (on both sides!)
If we can avoid the "sack the strikers/the crew should just shut up and put up!" kind of slanging matches we've had so far that would be much appreciated, whilst we can't help BA resolve its problems directly, we all no doubt might be able to come up with some ideas of our own as to how things could be made better?
My initial thoughts are that with a change of CEO, now is a perfect opportunity to try and turn things around. Ok, so the threat of more strikes is a worry and concern, but management shouldnt just be so stubbon to say "we're not changing or negotiating", as that will only serve to further the division between them and their crew and the Union, thus continuing this dispute on even longer than is necessary. If anything the threat of more strikes should be the incentive for both sides to come sort of agreement...the management don't want them, the crew don't want to have to do it, and most importantly the public don't want them either.
Sorry to go off on a slight tangent here, but just as an example, when the Lib-Dems joined up with the Tories, each side negotitated long into the night and each compromised on a variety of complex issues before they agreed to form the Coalition...so why can't management at BA, the crew/unions get together, and thrash out something between themselves that they can all agree to stick with.
By: kevinwm
- 23rd January 2011 at 20:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the Unions don't want to negotiate then what , and that is the sticking point
BA have already offered a generous package including staff travel back to those who striked in the first place all be it with lose of seniority for three years (when WW promised not give that perk back)
Another point is the fact that a majority of Staff have agreed to the changes and its minority about 1% of BA staff that are holding the rest to ransom
It happened at my work and those who did not agree to the terms were given 90 days notice of change of contract or were given the opportunity to take redundancy
BA also served on those who did not agree the 90 day notice and these were /are the one who want to strike
By: cloud_9
- 23rd January 2011 at 20:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The union has said it is waiting and willing to negotitate...but if you are right about it only being 1% of BA staff that are holding the rest to ransom...how and why did 43% vote in favour of more strikes?
The thing is I am only able to base my opinons on what I see/read in the news, and of course, both sides involved in an argument are always going to try to outdo each other with their "war of words" and PR spin...something else that needs to change if both sides are going to get along with each other.
By: kevinwm
- 23rd January 2011 at 20:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But if you are right about it only being 1% of BA staff that are holding the rest to ransom...how and why did 43% vote in favour of more strikes?
It wasn't 43%of staff it was 43 %of those cabin crew who actually voted and remember there has never been a 100% tun out If I remember less than 40 % actually voted in the last ballot before this one
No one but cabin crew have been balloted as its a dispute between CC and BA
By: Bmused55
- 23rd January 2011 at 20:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The union has said it is waiting and willing to negotitate..
They say that, yet they do not listen. They want it all their way. That's not negotiation. And when BA tell them it is not possible, that the union has to accept some consessions, the union spit their dummies out and leave then sling mud around in front of the cameras like an infant in a tantrum.
By: kevinwm
- 23rd January 2011 at 20:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Correct Bemused
BA is no longer the Dinosaur it used to be, WW saw the light and could see the company dying on its feet after Years of Managers not evolving the company to fit with the times,unions who dictated to mangers what was going to happen and this is what is sticking in the unions crop
Other unions including BALPA ,GMB. ect were asked and did negotiate with BA and all agreed with terms to suit both, BASSA decide not to bother and in the end BA was forced to issue the 90 days notice
Posts: 4,956
By: Sky High - 23rd January 2011 at 14:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We are not pouring vitriol on anyone, but unless there is more support for the contrary view then it will inevitably appear that way. I we disagree with a another member's point of view what are we supposed to do?:confused:
I happen to take a view on this and other similar disputes and that is my view. I am not pouring vitriol an anyone taking the contrary view - just wholeheartedly disagreeing with them.
Posts: 5,530
By: PMN - 23rd January 2011 at 14:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interflug, a very well thought out reply that makes the point probably better than the rest of us put together. :)
Nor do they work anywhere near as hard as they could, which is the key point.
How was Sandy in any way confrontational, bullying or offensive in his words? There are certain harsh realities we need to face as adults in life and the prospect of losing our job should economic circumstances change is very much one of them. If you find his words offensive then perhaps a slight change of outlook is required because all he's done is point something out that we all potentially face, regardless of whether we work in aviation, music, for the local council or in Burger King.
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 23rd January 2011 at 14:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Inventing scenarios now am I...what nonsense, I am actually quoting almost word for word what I say day in, day out to the passengers that I see and deal with!?:mad:
Clealy goes to show just how much contempt you have for people that try to offer you a decent level of service.
Posts: 5,530
By: PMN - 23rd January 2011 at 14:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The situation you mentioned has no need to occur, therefore it was invented.
Okay, making your point is fine but don't be patronising. I understand the difference between good service and rubbish service, I also know how many people it takes to offer a good level of service because I've seen it on hundreds of flights with probably 30+ different airlines. I don't need you talking down to me like I don't know the first thing about how any of this works, so please don't.
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 23rd January 2011 at 14:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok, so I might as well just give up now then had I Paul...sod customers, sod a decent level of service, sod everything!
Think this thread needs locking before I do/say something that I am going to regret!:mad:
Posts: 5,530
By: PMN - 23rd January 2011 at 14:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're being totally unreasonable and denying something that's a very clear straightforward fact. You claim losing one member of crew will directly affect service, but airlines around the world are proving that isn't actually the case and have been doing so for years. Why are you denying something that's such a clear fact? No-one's saying sod customers, what people are saying is there's a more economical way things can run with less cost but still provide the same level of service. Go back and very carefully read Interflug62M's post, what he says isn't opinion or something that can be disputed. Things are changing, and unless BA change with them then there won't be a national airline in the UK for long. What would you rather have, slightly harder working cabin crew or thousands of people out of work because the airline's gone bust? This, sadly, is the reality you need to understand.
Posts: 10,160
By: Grey Area - 23rd January 2011 at 15:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're supposed to state your case, naturally!
Which can, of course, be done without either side resorting to unpleasantness and/or adverse personal comments.
Can't it, chaps?
Posts: 4,956
By: Sky High - 23rd January 2011 at 15:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, of course, we would all like to think that is the case, but I suppose one man's adverse personal comment is another man's strongly expressed opinion. Either way I fear this thread is going the way of the previous one where old Cloud9 is at the crease on his own, so I'll retire back to the pavilion and leave others on the field.
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 23rd January 2011 at 16:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But BA could/should have changed long before...in fact, when low-cost airlines first came onto the scene. Instead, they blindly chose to think that it/they would be a fad, and that they wouldn't be successful...how wrong they were/still are!? Of course if you strip everything "service" related out of a "service" product, you end up with lower costs, and then you can pass these savings onto customers, but you cannot then realistically expect people to work just as hard to provide a high level of service, when they do not see any kind of appreciation or reward for their efforts. Also, and I fear we're going to end up in a similar situation as we did on the Ryanair thread, just because you like to travel with low-cost airlines because they are cheap and convinenet for you, doesn't mean that everyone does and you have to accept that there are those people who are willing to pay that bit more in return for a better quality service.
The way to look at this is to try and find out how airlines such as Virgin Atlantic managed to change...I'm sure that back in the so-called "old days", their crews were probably overpaid and they had more crew onboard than was necessary, but they have somehow managed to adapt and change to the market and avoid a strike, probably by negotitating and compromising with their staff, which clearly demonstrates that they care far more about their workers than what BA does about theirs!
What I would like to see is both management and crews working in harmony with each other in order to make the company profitable again, and then continuing to do so for many years to come...which is slightly different to what BA appear to want at the moment which is to make super-massive profits...in these extraordinary economic times, why can't they just be intent on making a small profit and looking after a loyal customer base?
Sadly though, until this dispute is resolved, and whilst there is all this bitterness and anamosity on both sides, this is not going to happen.
Posts: 2,886
By: MSR777 - 23rd January 2011 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And that would be a great loss to the debate as a whole. As I said in my last post, everybody on here, irrespective of their position on this issue must realize that this dispute is part of something very much bigger. I sincerely mean no disrespect to any other member here, but when I see so much bickering and arguments about 'how many cabin crew members there are, how much time to I get to say 'hello' to each passenger etc, it really makes me despair. cloud-9 I'm sorry, but I do question the importance of the factors that you highlight. To the vast majority of airline passengers today, with the possible exception of the first/business class people, those aspects are, by and large, of secondary importance. The rise of the God awful 'LoCo' carriers are testimony to that. Your own writings ' sod customers, sod a decent level of service' etc would seem to illustrate my point, in this mega competitive age, these standards, so dear to you, and rightly so, have had their day for most travelers. Nowadays the bottom line is how cheaply can I get my bum on that seat and get to where I want to go , and thats it. When I first went into aviation in 1981, those type of attributes were still very important, sadly they are no longer so. That is an example of the passenger and their demands and priorities changing, any 'legacy' airline with the will to survive will be aware of this change and adapt accordingly. If the employees don't cooperate, then IMO, all bets are off as to where theses airlines and their employees and managers will end up. For employees in those carriers with unchanged objectives and practices, it could well be the dole queue.:(
PMN, thanks for your comment, but there are members more capable than I.
cloud_9 I hope we will still be on speaking terms;)
Posts: 5,530
By: PMN - 23rd January 2011 at 16:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it's fair to say is what everyone wants to see, but even if/when BA pull through all this they then have to attract the customers back who went elsewhere because BA cabin crew couldn't be trusted to not strike. Once people go elsewhere it can be incredibly difficult to get them back and this is the reason the strikes are so damaging. Sure, they're hurting the management but they're also hurting customers which in turn ultimately hurts themselves in a big way. I'm not the smartest guy on the planet but I'm reasonably intelligent, and with all the will in the world and however I look at this situation I just can't rationalise it. I'm not saying BA aren't without fault, but such repeated strike action seems counter-intuitive and simply lacking in basic logic to me. In fact it's a spectacular example of 'shooting yourself in the foot' or 'cutting your nose off to spite your face'. Wikipedia describes the last saying as:
"an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem. "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the source of one's anger".
I can think of no truer saying for this unfortunate situation.
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 23rd January 2011 at 17:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interflug, I have found your posts to be very interesting and thought-provoking indeed, and may I congratulate you on that...of course, we're still on speaking terms!:)
The only and real reason that I appear to put up such a fight is because I am so passionate about customer service standards...I live and breath it day in, day out, and I feel an imense amount of personal satisfaction when I am told that I am doing a good job, or when I open a letter (or should I say e-mail...who writes letters thesedays!;)) that says thank-you or congratulates me on offering a great service...it is what inspires me to continue doing what I do, and I do think that some people just don't understand or appreciate this.
I totally agree with you about the fact that the low-cost carriers have brought about these changes in the industry and the attitudes of people, and I do think that its a great shame that people's attitudes towards air travel have changed to the point that it now results in "how cheaply can I get my bum on that seat"...or more so, from the airlines perspectives, "how much can we get out of the passenger, seeing as we only charged £5 for his/her seat".
The truth of the matter is I am going through a bit of a rough patch at the moment because I happen to represent a well-known US airline (Continental), which is merging with United. Continental obviously prides itself on providing an International Concierge service to its Business Class customers, whereas United offers something similar but it is no-way near as good as ours, but as and when the merger nears completion, a decison will ulitmately be made as to whether CO's Concierge service will survive or not...and I have a hunch that it may not survive, simply because it is a "cost" in some people's eyes that could be gotten rid of in order to provide a slightly bigger profit than normal.
Flying maybe just isnt meant to be as "fun" or as "exciting" anymore as it once used to be, and perhaps I should begin looking for a new job because at this rate, I could be on the dole queue myself pretty soon!:(
Posts: 5,530
By: PMN - 23rd January 2011 at 19:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some don't understand it, but you really shouldn't assume that people don't understand something just because they disagree with you (which is the impression you've very much given here). I more than understand being passionate about something; I started getting involved in music over 18 years ago and even now 1000+ concerts down the line I'm every bit as passionate as I was when I started, and I mean that. It still brings me immense joy and pleasure to be in a room of any size and see people enjoying a performance I'm a part of in some way. I'm going through a bad patch at the moment as well (which has actually lasted over a year - hence my attitude of just getting on with it and trying to look at things in a clear, straightforward way), but regardless of how bad things may be nothing dampens the passion I have for what I do. If I'm not listening to music I'm playing it, if I'm not playing it I'm mixing it, if I'm not doing one of those things then I'm probably asleep. It's a tremendously important thing to me, and regardless of how bad things may be that won't change, so yeah, I do get it and you don't need to explain how passionate you are. That's already clear and others are equally passionate, but just because someone disagrees doesn't make them any less passionate. I know I'm talking about music and the subject of the thread is aviation but I think passion's a pretty universal feeling.
Anyway, all that aside it's never good to see people going through bad times so I wish you all the best. Fingers crossed things work out well for you.
Paul
Posts: 4,956
By: Sky High - 23rd January 2011 at 19:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, for my part, I hope things work out for both of you.:)
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 23rd January 2011 at 19:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps, as you said earlier Paul, it is the fact that maybe I just get a bit "too passionate" for my own good?:o
I try to have a philosophy of always aiming high, because if you don't achieve what you initially set out to achieve then you can't be that disappointed with what you do achieve in the end. In theory this works and maybe I just try to kid myself into beliveing this, but in reality the truth is that I often find that when things are going well, they go very well for me...and when things go bad, they go seriously really bad...and its sometimes really hard to dig yourself out. Worse thing is though, it comes and goes, in peaks and troughs, although the dips usually happen alot quicker than the rises up. I'd certainly be very interested to know how to adapt to your "just get on with it and try to look at things in a clear, straightforward way" of thinking. PM me if you can help me with this.:)
Anyways, to try and get us back onto the aviation related theme here, might I ask for people's opinions on what they think should happen at BA now, because I am sure none of us would like to see it go under, and it is quite obvious that changes need to be made (on both sides!)
If we can avoid the "sack the strikers/the crew should just shut up and put up!" kind of slanging matches we've had so far that would be much appreciated, whilst we can't help BA resolve its problems directly, we all no doubt might be able to come up with some ideas of our own as to how things could be made better?
My initial thoughts are that with a change of CEO, now is a perfect opportunity to try and turn things around. Ok, so the threat of more strikes is a worry and concern, but management shouldnt just be so stubbon to say "we're not changing or negotiating", as that will only serve to further the division between them and their crew and the Union, thus continuing this dispute on even longer than is necessary. If anything the threat of more strikes should be the incentive for both sides to come sort of agreement...the management don't want them, the crew don't want to have to do it, and most importantly the public don't want them either.
Sorry to go off on a slight tangent here, but just as an example, when the Lib-Dems joined up with the Tories, each side negotitated long into the night and each compromised on a variety of complex issues before they agreed to form the Coalition...so why can't management at BA, the crew/unions get together, and thrash out something between themselves that they can all agree to stick with.
Posts: 1,105
By: kevinwm - 23rd January 2011 at 20:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the Unions don't want to negotiate then what , and that is the sticking point
BA have already offered a generous package including staff travel back to those who striked in the first place all be it with lose of seniority for three years (when WW promised not give that perk back)
Another point is the fact that a majority of Staff have agreed to the changes and its minority about 1% of BA staff that are holding the rest to ransom
It happened at my work and those who did not agree to the terms were given 90 days notice of change of contract or were given the opportunity to take redundancy
BA also served on those who did not agree the 90 day notice and these were /are the one who want to strike
PS hope you keep your job Cloud 9
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 23rd January 2011 at 20:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The union has said it is waiting and willing to negotitate...but if you are right about it only being 1% of BA staff that are holding the rest to ransom...how and why did 43% vote in favour of more strikes?
The thing is I am only able to base my opinons on what I see/read in the news, and of course, both sides involved in an argument are always going to try to outdo each other with their "war of words" and PR spin...something else that needs to change if both sides are going to get along with each other.
Posts: 1,105
By: kevinwm - 23rd January 2011 at 20:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It wasn't 43%of staff it was 43 %of those cabin crew who actually voted and remember there has never been a 100% tun out If I remember less than 40 % actually voted in the last ballot before this one
No one but cabin crew have been balloted as its a dispute between CC and BA
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 23rd January 2011 at 20:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They say that, yet they do not listen. They want it all their way. That's not negotiation. And when BA tell them it is not possible, that the union has to accept some consessions, the union spit their dummies out and leave then sling mud around in front of the cameras like an infant in a tantrum.
Posts: 1,105
By: kevinwm - 23rd January 2011 at 20:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Correct Bemused
BA is no longer the Dinosaur it used to be, WW saw the light and could see the company dying on its feet after Years of Managers not evolving the company to fit with the times,unions who dictated to mangers what was going to happen and this is what is sticking in the unions crop
Other unions including BALPA ,GMB. ect were asked and did negotiate with BA and all agreed with terms to suit both, BASSA decide not to bother and in the end BA was forced to issue the 90 days notice