Potential Airline Strikes, American, BA, etc.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Several large U.S. airlines are in the middle of labor negotiations that could lead to higher costs and even disruptions for travelers.

 

 

The most acute problems are at American, where flight attendants and some ground workers are talking openly about possible strikes this fall. American's parent, AMR Corp., spends 30 percent of its revenue on labor compared with 18 to 22 percent at the other big airlines.

 

 

Unions at UAL Corp.'s United and Continental Airlines Inc. need to work out a combined contract that will take effect if the airlines complete their planned merger. Delta faces unionization votes by flight attendants and ground workers.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Looks like BA may be headed for ANOTHER round of strikes.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10695976

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10765373

[pms4104]

Yes, I was aware of the problems at American ... and I recently took a look at TravelGuard's strike list. The cutoff dates for various carriers on that list: BA - 02/10/10; AA - 05/18/10; IB - 06/03/10. So, for people with TravelGuard flying any of these carriers, they will not be covered for interruption/cancellation if their policy's effective date is after the respective cutoff dates.

[Globaliser]

Looks like BA may be headed for ANOTHER round of strikes.

During which BA will operate 100% of its flights at Gatwick, 100% of its flights at London City, and 100% of its Heathrow long-hauls, if the strike happens at all.

[Sargent_Schultz]

During which BA will operate 100% of its flights at Gatwick, 100% of its flights at London City, and 100% of its Heathrow long-hauls, if the strike happens at all.

 

Wow. Go to Vegas.

 

BA has had what, 22 strike days this year alone? 100% of the fights they canceled, and they canceled a lot, never left the ground.

 

It is wasn't an issue, they wouldn't be excluded from insurance policies.

[fbgd]

It is wasn't an issue, they wouldn't be excluded from insurance policies.

 

You expect insurance companies to give anyone a leg up? ;)

 

The BA strikes have been extremely well handled by the company, the contingency measures are extremely effective and on the 'strike flights' I've been on this year there have only been minor inconveniences, not even worth mentioning.

 

To correct one point you made, quite a lot of the cancelled flights were re-instated a week or so before travel.

[Sargent_Schultz]

So BA canceled no flights, no strike occurred, no passengers were inconvenienced, and certainly none were stressed? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

[Globaliser]

So BA canceled no flights

During the last strike, BA operated 100% of its LCY schedule and 100% of its LGW schedule (subject, of course, to the usual non-strike related problems).

 

BA operated about 80% of its LHR longhauls and about 60% of its LHR shorthauls.

 

The percentage of flights fully operated increased as the strike period went on. As fbgd says, a number of flights that were initially cancelled were later reinstated.

 

In addition, a number of the flights that were cancelled for passengers nevertheless operated. These were often carrying increased amounts of cargo, and allowed the aircraft to be positioned to bring passengers back to London even though it was during the strike period.

 

In any further strike period, the company's resources and the number of cabin crew who are working mean that 100% of LHR long-hauls will be operated, together with the same 100% of LCY and 100% of LGW services.

 

Is that really so hard to understand?

[frugaltravel]

Percentages are irrelevant when it is YOUR flight that is cancelled. With the last BA strike, I know of at least 3 people whose flights within Europe were cancelled even though their long-haul flights operated. Well, how were they going to get to LHR? It was a PITA for those people.

[Sargent_Schultz]

The percentages are also averages and not indicative of the reality that in the beginning a large number of flights were canceled and as BA figured things out, the cancellations decreased.

[fbgd]

Percentages are irrelevant when it is YOUR flight that is cancelled. With the last BA strike, I know of at least 3 people whose flights within Europe were cancelled even though their long-haul flights operated. Well, how were they going to get to LHR? It was a PITA for those people.

 

Well, when the last strike was announced for my days of travel I had the option of rebooking to another carrier, getting a full refund, or travelling on alternative days.

 

Not much of a hardship really!

[frugaltravel]

Well, when the last strike was announced for my days of travel I had the option of rebooking to another carrier, getting a full refund, or travelling on alternative days.

 

Not much of a hardship really!

 

My friends were told Get to London, rebook another date or refund. No rebooking to another carrier. Kind of a real pain if you ask me.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Well, when the last strike was announced for my days of travel I had the option of rebooking to another carrier, getting a full refund, or travelling on alternative days.

 

Not much of a hardship really!

 

Why am I reminded of diet and other scams...

 

Results not typical, your mileage may vary, ....

[Globaliser]

Percentages are irrelevant when it is YOUR flight that is cancelled.

True, if your flight is cancelled. But if 100% of flights are going to operate, that's a percentage that's relevant to everyone.

The percentages are also averages and not indicative of the reality that in the beginning a large number of flights were canceled and as BA figured things out, the cancellations decreased.

The decrease in the number of cancellations wasn't as dramatic as you make it sound. The airline wasn't ever paralysed from this strike, and it will be less affected next time.

My friends were told Get to London, rebook another date or refund. No rebooking to another carrier.

Well, that was just wrong, because rebooking on another airline was an official published option, clearly stated on the website.

[6rugrats]

Well, that was just wrong, because rebooking on another airline was an official published option, clearly stated on the website.

 

True, although I had no flights booked at the time on BA, I did receive an email from them, stating this option was available.

[KCcruisin07]

Well, when the last strike was announced for my days of travel I had the option of rebooking to another carrier, getting a full refund, or travelling on alternative days.

 

Not much of a hardship really!

 

We were affected by the strike. Our return flights showed as flown, couldn't get through by phone or Internet, had to drive to the airport, take an extra flight to Chicago and then home, etc. It is not a cakewalk.

[bobcholmes]

We were booked Barcelona to Heathrow, then on to Houston (which was canceled). Flight from Barcelona was on a different carrier (no big deal), likewise the connection. We were rebooked on American from Heathrow to Houston (not nonstop but with a stop in Chicago (also not a big deal)). The BA strike, although causing a few anxious moments at first, turned into not much of an issue.

 

Their cabin crew really ought to be happy they have a good job, or BA should just fire the whole bunch and start over. Labor unions. Aren't they great?:rolleyes:

[Globaliser]

Their cabin crew really ought to be happy they have a good job, or BA should just fire the whole bunch and start over. Labor unions. Aren't they great?

It's not quite as simple as that.

 

The union represents only some of the cabin crew - something like two-thirds or three-quarters of them. Of the union members, those who work at Gatwick have refused to have anything to do with the strike; it's fundamentally a Heathrow-only dispute, as Gatwick has been happily working for years on the sort of arrangements that the Heathrow union leaders are refusing to accept. (Many non-union cabin crew have accepted the new arrangements on an individual contract basis.)

 

Of the Heathrow cabin crew, only a proportion of them have actually gone on strike - different figures are being bandied about left, right and centre, but it looks like only about 3,000 (out of about 13,000 cabin crew) actually withdrew their labour at all, and some of those came back to work later.

 

And the union appears to be losing members all the time, as people are becoming terminally fed up with the leadership, whose utterings appear to be increasingly desperate, incoherent and deranged.

 

It will be interesting if there is another strike and it turns out that it's over the same things as last time. If so, then it seems that BA will be legally entitled to sack the strikers. But none of that will stop the airline; indeed, it won't stop any of the long-haul flights.

[scottbee]

Their cabin crew really ought to be happy they have a good job, or BA should just fire the whole bunch and start over. Labor unions. Aren't they great?:rolleyes:

 

Wow, who peed in your cornflakes?

[bobcholmes]

Wow, who peed in your cornflakes?

 

No change from my normal demeanor. I'm 68 yrs old, don't now or have I ever had a use for unions. I spent 22 of my working years in the U.S. Navy, the rest for Navy contractors and we never had unions or labor difficulties at the places I worked. Maybe I did overstate to "fire them all". On our last BA flight I had a chance to talk to a couple of the cabin crew and they were certainly not in favor of all the turmoil, and they wanted to work. Just fire all the ones that don't.

[Globaliser]

On our last BA flight I had a chance to talk to a couple of the cabin crew and they were certainly not in favor of all the turmoil, and they wanted to work. Just fire all the ones that don't.

I think you'd have a lot of agreement there.

 

It's important to remember that the majority of the volunteer cabin crew are from equally highly-unionised sectors of the company. It's one of the things that makes this such an unusual dispute. You'd normally expect a lot of fraternal solidarity when one union is in an intractable dispute. But here, the whole of the company is pulling together to make sure that the militants in the cabin crew union don't prevail.

[Sargent_Schultz]

If they don't want to strike, then why are they in the union? Why not quit the union and get the leeches off their backs?

 

For that matter, if management negotiates with the union, they need to be fired, too.

[Globaliser]

It's being said that this is the latest piece of lunacy from the BA cabin crew union:-

It has been brought to our attention that crew are being asked to close all the window blinds at the end of each flight. This has not been agreed with BASSA and no safe working practice has been trialled. The normal practice when anything new is introduced is that the Health, Safety and Welfare committee would carry out a risk assessment to confirm that everything is safe.

 

Please note that no provision has been put in place for this extra duty and therefore you should not be carrying it out. If we do this it will become normal working practice and you will then become obliged to do it and then what next - pick up all the litter?

 

Please politely refuse if you are asked to do this at the end of your flight.

Really, you couldn't make it up. No wonder they're losing members.

[bobcholmes]

It's being said that this is the latest piece of lunacy from the BA cabin crew union:-Really, you couldn't make it up. No wonder they're losing members.

 

I rest my case.