Bay Capital Share Discussion Threads

[exbacrew] 10/5/2010 23:30

Selborne_Edge

"BA should be able to recruit casual labour for the entire period." They already have and they are called Pilots!

[cat100] 10/5/2010 22:40

track that flight

[selborne_edge] 10/5/2010 21:11

As all the strike days are close together, BA should be able to recruit casual labour for the entire period. There must be many potential highly-skilled recruits for BA to call upon, particularly at this time of high unemployment. The Company did very well last time to maintain a good standard of service.

[maximillian1] 10/5/2010 20:10

Anon

Give me a call...will post again at 8 .10 in the morning if you are about...

[jackdaw9] 10/5/2010 19:29

I have just heard Derek Simpson being interviewed and he was asked about the anger of the travelling public at the massive disruptions over the holidays..."Well there are other airlines to use" Says it all really.

[cat100] 10/5/2010 16:27

11:27:39 Today DOWJONES BA: Confident Many Crew Will Ignore Strike Call

[cat100] 10/5/2010 16:26

11:25:27 Today DOWJONES British Airways: Saddened By Plans For Extensive Disruption

[bartram] 10/5/2010 16:22

A legal challenge by BA to the strike's validity has to be a possibilty.

From the today's Times:

"BA wrote to the union last week asserting that the focus of the unrest seemed to have shifted from the original grievance - the removal of one cabin crew member from all flights - to the company's refusal to reinstate 55 crew suspended during the dispute. BA refused to say whether the apparent shift was likely to provoke a legal challenge. It has already won two High Court rulings against Unite."

[selborne_edge] 10/5/2010 16:20

BA must reduce costs, it is deeply in debt and there is a massive pension deficit. It just cannot go on as it is, with CC on gold-plated salaries and everything that goes with it. WW has to hold on and hope that members of the CC will acquire a measure of commonsense and understand what a precarious position their airline is in.

[gswredland] 10/5/2010 16:19

Who will travel with BA when they know plans could be disrupted?

[horus22222] 10/5/2010 16:18

and staff costs

[spob] 10/5/2010 16:17

Yes think of the fuel savings

BUY BUY BUY

[diku] 10/5/2010 16:16

If there were strikes every day it would still be a BUY!!...

[spob] 10/5/2010 16:13

20 days of strikes from next tuesday

Only 20 ?

Strong BUY

[horus22222] 10/5/2010 15:40

All other branches of BA came to agreements, close to 18 months of unite saying no to every thing BA has said or offered, then strikes. He even risked looking weak and gave the travel back they still said no, they want to settle ASAP I dont think so, they want it all their way or no way.

[exbacrew] 10/5/2010 15:25

UNITE are looking to settle this dispute ASAP and not bring BA to it's knees - unfortunately it is Walsh's intransigence that is prolonging this dispute

[selborne_edge] 10/5/2010 10:53

UNITE will do anything in its power to bring BA to its knees and that includes disrupting the travelling arrangements of football fans. It is just a matter of time for BA to be placed in 'administration' and that will be end of a fine airline.

[schlemiel] 10/5/2010 08:36

anyone else think that Unite will target the football world cup in south africa for maximum disruption and impact?

[alphorn] 09/5/2010 23:43

"The leaders of Britain's biggest trade union will meet representatives of British Airways cabin crew today, flush with a fighting fund of £700,000 to support a strike that threatens to ground flights for three weeks, including the Whitsun Bank Holiday and school half-term.

Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson, the joint general secretaries of Unite, are expected to endorse calls for a prolonged strike after meeting the two wings representing BA stewards". (Times)

Well I am pleased that I am short with these loonies about. IMO doing their members no favours.

[selborne_edge] 08/5/2010 16:23

The sad thing is that while UNITE and the CC are carrying out this destructive action, the lifeblood BA is slipping away. I can understand that UNITE is thoroughly enjoying bringing BA to its knees but for the cabin crew to be throwing away their jobs, together with the jobs of the rest of BA air and ground crew, is incredible.

[bartram] 08/5/2010 08:41

horus22222 ... from today's Guardian:

Marc Meryon, industrial relations partner at Bircham Dyson Bell, said: "If Unite calls its members out on strike again in reliance upon the original 2010 ballot then BA may have grounds to challenge the legality of that strike if it can show that the matters now in dispute are different to those on which the members were balloted in February. Their argument will be that Unite has no mandate for strike action on these new matters."

However, he said Unite could see off a BA challenge if the original ballot paper referred to striking over "any matters arising in consequence of that dispute".

[petelongden] 08/5/2010 08:34

horus22222

You cant just sack the lot.

The Industrial Action is a lawful dispute and all 'strikers' are protected for 12 weeks. After 12 weeks the strike mandate expires and UNITE have to re-ballot.

If you are dismissed for taking industrial action for 12 weeks or less (including a period of just a few hours or days), you will be able to make a claim for unfair dismissal and your dismissal will be unfair. This applies whether you are dismissed while taking part in the action or at any time after you stopped taking part.



After the 12 weeks has expired UNITE will not carry on with it's IA without a fresh mandate. BA therefore cannot dismiss legally - nothing to stop them dismissing illegally and then the individuals going to a tribunal.

[horus22222] 07/5/2010 22:29

Old Giggleswickian
thanks for the response, I thought they had to be on strike for "x" number of days. I did not know you could just sack the lot as long as it is all of them and you are not selective.

[alanrex] 07/5/2010 22:13

wow. this share price (like many others) really has tanked. it looked remarkably resilient for a while, but even the contrarian in me finds it hard to be positive about this. the losses for this year will take a fair whack off the balance sheet. a double dip recession will not be helpful...

i have no interest in this share (used to be short), but watching it out of interest. i could be tempted if the share price was a lot cheaper but otherwise will just watch.

good luck to all.


all imo dyor

[old giggleswickian] 07/5/2010 21:34

horus,
Regarding your first question, the only thing that has changed is the motivation for the strike, the technical details are the same. They have rejected the company's proposal to resolve the dispute, their reason for rejecting the offer is because of a new issue introduced since the start of the strike. That may seem like semantics to you but would look perfectly reasonable from the other side.
Regarding your second question, if employees are taking part in official industrial action, they cannot normally claim unfair dismissal if the employer dismisses all of them, but can make such a claim if the employer selectively dismisses or selectively offers re-engagement, or if the industrial action is "protected". So they would have to sack them all or make the company liable to claims of unfair dismissal.
Not what you might want to hear.

Ian.