Virgin Atlantic strike announced

Pete, I sincerely hope you're right, I'm beginning to share your optimism.[^]

Like VS I am confident that all flights will run as predicted.

Dont forget a 747 can legally fly with 12 crew but normally we have 18, the 600 can fly with 11 crew but we have 15 and the 300 can legally fly with 9 although we normally have 13.

So maybe many flights will go with the minimum crew but Im sure they will go.

I guess time will tell now.

You have to think your flight will go there is no point getting all worked up. Just go about your normal business and see what happens next week.

Excellent post, Declan[y]

45.

Originally posted by Neil
I'm not so sure you're predictions are right Alex. Of course it is very difficult to predict exactly what will happen on the strike dates, but to basically say VS are only nominating a few flights whilst full well knowing they will cancel more on the day just doesn't seem founded. Delays and cancellations happen when no strikes are happening so of course there is potential and possibility of problems on the days but VS seem, as Pete has said, confident the plan they have put forward will work, and I for one hope its a roaring success.

I think you didn't fully grasp what I was saying and why. I said that I don't think VS will run to a full schedule on the strike dates minus the already cancelled flights. Take it as you will but to me that is founded because there is an increased likelihood on the strike dates that VS will cancel more flights than on a day where there are no strikes.

The schedule that VS intend to operate is based on several factors, some of which I believe are very fragile as it will rely on crew who aren't striking/non-union members/refreshed ex-crew and even though that is a large number we're talking about I still think that there will inevitably be a few cancellations due to lack of crew.

I'm not being a scare-monger but it appears that VS are highly confident they can deliver the planned services in the 'head in the sand' attitude that Vegas Tone puts it, and at the same time there is the potential for it to all go wrong.

Yes I accept that things go wrong anyway on a normal day, but on a strike date how badly wrong something goes would surely be higher, and when they do they will be magnified on a huge scale - the media will be watching the strikes with interest and if one thing goes wrong it will be exposed.

For now I'm not going to say that it's all going to end in tears on the strike dates for VS, but at the same time I'm not going to share Pete's optimism by saying that VS will deliver the advertised schedule, so I'm too looking for middle grounding.

[Pete]

Originally posted by VS075

I'm not being a scare-monger but it appears that VS are highly confident they can deliver the planned services in the 'head in the sand' attitude that Vegas Tone puts it, and at the same time there is the potential for it to all go wrong.

Alex, you are being a scare monger for the simple reason your assumption is purely based on speculation whereas the VS plan is based on knowledge of what realistically is available, even with full support of the strike by Union members. This is not a head-in-the-sand attitude, it has been very carefully worked out using information like aircraft position, full time crew available, temporary crew available and minimum crewing requirements. VS will know those figures - it is not 'fragile' information, whereas you're basically saying 'it's going to go tits up' based on nothing more than your own opinion.

By continuing to repeat that opinion with no facts to back it up, it's a dangerous message.

Sure, something could go horribly wrong. A crew bus could break down; an aircraft could go tech; a pilot could become ill in a remote station leaving an aircraft out of position. But these things could just as easily happen today. Luckily, they don't happen every day.

The only question I find myself asking is 'Has the SRB ultimatum made things worse, rather than better?'

Basically, have crew members who had voted 'No' to strike, and were previously prepared to cross any picket lines and report for work on the strike days, been so alienated by SRB's message (regardless of whether or not they were one of the 'moaners', it was fired from the equivalent of a blunderbus) and said 'Okay, sod that. I'll not turn up either, if that's how they feel?'

Mike

[Pete]

Originally posted by mike-smashing
The only question I find myself asking is 'Has the SRB ultimatum made things worse, rather than better?'

Basically, have crew members who had voted 'No' to strike, and were previously prepared to cross any picket lines and report for work on the strike days, been so alienated by SRB's message (regardless of whether or not they were one of the 'moaners', it was fired from the equivalent of a blunderbus) and said 'Okay, sod that. I'll not turn up either, if that's how they feel?'

Mike

A fair point, Mike. I think where SRB's comments have been taken out of context, I've seen some bad reactions to them. Where people have read and understood the full message, I think they can see what he was getting at. The problem is that BA is so far ahead of all UK carriers (and probably worldwide), that any attempt to match those salaries would cripple the airline. I think that's what SRB meant when he said for those that want unaffordable rises. But yes, the message will have backfired with a certain percentage of the crew.

Although SRB is correct!

For those that want BA wages then go to BA luckily VS are not holding anyone hostage.

It seems if you want the extra money then it will be easier to move airline because Virgin are not gonna budge,

Originally posted by Pete
Alex, you are being a scare monger for the simple reason your assumption is purely based on speculation whereas the VS plan is based on knowledge of what realistically is available, even with full support of the strike by Union members. This is not a head-in-the-sand attitude, it has been very carefully worked out using information like aircraft position, full time crew available, temporary crew available and minimum crewing requirements. VS will know those figures - it is not 'fragile' information, whereas you're basically saying 'it's going
to go tits up' based on nothing more than your own opinion.

By continuing to repeat that opinion with no facts to back it up, it's a dangerous message.

Sure, something could go horribly wrong. A crew bus could break down; an aircraft could go tech; a pilot could become ill in a remote station leaving an aircraft out of position. But these things could just as easily happen today. Luckily, they don't happen every day.

Fair points, my opinions are indeed based on the speculation and even though as you have said it has all been accounted for I'll always have my doubts about whether it will work on the day for VS or not.

As there's really no point in arguing about who's going to be right because it's based on facts and who's going to be wrong because it's based on speculation since none of us really have no idea on how it's going to pan out after all, we're just going to have to sit back and watch what happens.

Originally posted by declansmith
Although SRB is correct!

For those that want BA wages then go to BA luckily VS are not holding anyone hostage.

It seems if you want the extra money then it will be easier to move airline because Virgin are not gonna budge,

Thing is though not all of the crew are after the extra money, there's the T&Cs (and the decency of them) that some of the crew are after, and of course the crew who are after both.

Having said that the impression that VS aren't going to budge on the situation isn't getting the matter any closer to reaching a sensible conclusion, and I'd say that its more heading towards the possibility that neither side wins - which will only cause repeat/further problems a couple of years down the line.

This is the problem, the biggest concern is the pay, the second thing is the new standby system that was introduced.

Next of all only Virgin Managers were out there listening to what crew wanted and responded with what they thought was required.

Brian Boyd has been useless, since getting the results of the strike the Union have not sent out any communication at all. However VS have kept us all updated with regular updates about the situation.

We pay £9 a month to the union, I wish I paid that to VS becuase we seem to get more communication and input from them.

[Darren Wheeler]

Having read the letter on TimesOnline, it is a well structured request to the crews not to strike and the reasons why no more can be offered. There are no threats, no 'if you don't like it, sod off!' not even any of the usual SRB exuberance, only a direct plea from someone who founded the airline, and still takes fatherly interest in how his child is doing, for the strike not to go ahead. His listing other carriers that have gone bust or been save by public funds in the US only highlights how fragile the industry is.

If I were in Unite and considering striking I would be swayed by it into working.

Elements within the VS CC are making him out to be some kind of drama queen who has thrown a hissy fit at everyone.

As has been said before, if you want the money BA pay, then apply for a job there. Virgin are not going to give you a rise to match it and nor should they. Just a quick read through the TR's show that some CC are rude, surly, lazy individuals that view passengers as an inconvienient annoyance that delays their trip to some far-off location. Some of the atitudes listed in the TR's just would not be tolerated in most service industries and I suspect, will not be in BA either.

Yes, money is important as after all it's why we go out to work (despite what we say) but you live within your means. Everyone who accepted a job with VS knew what the wages were when they signed the contract and adjusted their life to fit the income and the needs of the job.

To blame Unite is unfair as they recommended the final offer and are now following the wishes of their members. The blame lies with the hard-liners who seem to think VS is a cash cow that can be squeezed dry regardless of the effect on passengers, both booked and future, or the company as a whole. I suspect they are the very CC whose attitudes result in poor TR's. Any strike, even for 24-hours could push VS into a dangerous position especially as oil has just broken $100 a barrel.

4.8% might seem a lot better than Job Seekers Alowance.


Anyway, enough of my ranting.

This is how I see it...

*Union are not communicating effectively enough now with members
*VS are keeping crew in the loop regarding developments
*Branson has told the moaners where to go
*VS are telling crew what they want, rather than giving them what they want (even though it is plausible that not all of the crew's demands are to be met)

If VS want the situation to go in their favour then all they've got to do is to either come back with an offer that suits them and at the same the crew/union will accept just to end the situation (this can be before or after the strikes) OR they just leave the last rejected offer on the table.

For the union they need to start communicating with members better as I feel that they will very soon be fighting for a lost cause, and they can do this by getting a clear of picture of what the crew want and keep reminding VS of this. Although to be fair they did recommended the last offer so their original desire to strike isn't looking too good now than if it was done based on the other offers.

For neither side to win, the strikes will come to nothing and support for which will dwindle away and it's back to work. It may at that stage appear that VS has won that battle, but they won't have done as it will mean that they have come out of disruption which would've been deemed unnecessary and will only come back to haunt them the next time crew pay is up for negotiation, especially if the current pay deal is retained and VS keep their current stance of 'no deal on table' as it is.

[Darren Wheeler]

Originally posted by declansmith


We pay £9 a month to the union, I wish I paid that to VS becuase we seem to get more communication and input from them.

£9 a month seems rather high. I only pay £7 to a much smaller union.

Do you get the feeling the union are not really behind the strike?

Originally posted by Darren Wheeler

Originally posted by declansmith


We pay £9 a month to the union, I wish I paid that to VS becuase we seem to get more communication and input from them.

£9 a month seems rather high. I only pay £7 to a much smaller union.

Do you get the feeling the union are not really behind the strike?

They did recommend the last offer...

[Darren Wheeler]

Yes, they did.

Last time i checked I was paying £9.20 to the union per month.

The Union is keeping very quiet indeed, which has annoyed alot of people.

Brian Boyd is useless, not sure how he gained his role at all.

The union recommended the last two offers then recommended the strike. The VAA reps were telling us what the offers were but then saying they were voting as members, implying that there were voting NO to the pay deals.

The whole Union is a joke really the leader is saying Vote YES to the offers the reps are saying vote NO!!!

Then the poor crew have to work out who to listen too.

Declan, Surely the Union is in an impossible situation.
They have known that they were in a lose-lose situation from the beginning which is why they continued to recommend acceptance of the deal.
I say lose-lose because they understand that it is impossible for Virgin to meet the expectations of many of their active members (parity with BA)and it is also impossible to force Virgin due to the low number of Union members and even lower number of Union activists.
The Union would know from the beginning that they would not get anywhere near parity with BA.
They also would know from the beginning that strike action would not achieve any major advantage - but what it would achieve is a major loss of Union members.

We are now seeing the results - people leaving the Union - massive divisions between CC and other groups within Virgin - and most damaging of all, the widening divisions within the CC.

I believe that the Union knew this - but what options were left open to them?

I thought the letter from Sir RB was as clear as the driven snow, his one comment about lifestyle choices and VA not being able to support/provide for those lifestyle choices was not an insult to anyone just a fact from a business man that deals in realities.

A pay rise has been offered and rejected by the people it was offered to, Sir R isn't saying get nothing or sod off to anyone, he was specific to a group of CC's but had to put that in a general letter to the whole staff ( or he would be in trouble wouldn't he )

If i want my lifestyle to drastically improve I have to work harder to make my company earn more or move on, its not my bosses responsibility. He has a duty of care to keep me safe at work and not to allow me to be bullied or intimidated, what he pays me and what I am prepared to charge for my time is between me and him, staying at home and hiding behind a possible tribunal if he doesn't pay me what I want isn't an option.

The I love VA so much and am so dedicated to the brand I shouldn't have to leave on the one hand and the if you don't pay me what I want ( which I won't actually tell you what) or I will wreck the company I love on the other hand is a contradiction in terms.

The people that have taken offense are the 'screachers' who have been screaching and backbiting at anything and anyone with a differing point of view ( not on this forum ), which has made some that the comment didn't refer to feel it was aimed at them as well.

Unless I've missed something it's still not clear what the srike is for. In most previous cases of strike action I can think of there has been a clear set of demands published by the union. This certainly doesn't seem to have happened in this case which I thnk is quite confusing for everyone including the cc involved.

The only 'sort' of demand I have been able to grasp is that the cc seem want the same pay and conditions as BA cc and if that's the case then looking at the numbers this just doesn't stack up. On this basis there are going to be an awful number of unhappy people out there.

Miopyk[8D]

Declan, as a union member you will be aware there was a communication on the 20th on the amicus site (in the my amicus section too), there was a further communication on the 31st stating the next would be on the 4th.

Yes communication has not been fantastic however it is a two way process, if you want you can always call a union rep or Mr B himself who will happily engage in conversation with you, contact details under your union pages of the website.

[Pete]

A press release has just been issued by VS: Virgin Atlantic says pay increase can only happen if Cabin Crew come to work

likewise todays amicus release can be read here

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.p ... tcount=356

If I were a union member, I would be very disappointed by the latest Unite press release. It has nothing constructive to say and no suggestions of progress beyond trite truisms. It is also mendacious in that it does not acknowledge the forced u-turn which would go some way to explain its half-hearted vacuity.

The industrial unions achieved amazing and morally admirable victories in the 19th and early 20th centuries; but unions in modern service industries are blunt, rather stupid instruments. Sadly, they now find themselves little more than lumbering relics, blundering about confusedly in the jungle of modern service-capitalism's global machinations.

Some literal-minded CC have taken umbrage at SRB's letter - but such umbrage is simple-minded: if you do not accept that a career with a particular organisation is fulfilling, you have every right to find another organisation (or another career). This is not nasty or a threat, but a statement of your real freedom and your real power. You can call anyone's bluff whenever you want. There is no indentured servitude. No bonded labour. Just you and the power of your skills and experience. Those who have few skills and ineffective experience have much to fear. But so they should. And they translate their fear into a collective lashing out.

Some particularly bitter CC see the strike as a sign of strength, a cathartic blow against 'The Man'. In reality, to go on strike is a sign of weakness. It says 'we're not confident professionals - we know that we are weak and can only lash out in a collective, short-term blackmail'. A confident and effective group of employees, assured in their skills and the value of those skills, would examine carefully what the company could afford and would negotiate for that. If they did not receive it, they would give the company a deadline, and, finally, leave the company for another which recognised the value of their skills.

All this is not to exculpate VS management. On the contrary, it is clear to even the biggest fanboy that all is not well in Crawley. The management team is banal, uncommunicative, unresponsive and contemptuous. They're clearly not vibrant and passionate aviation professionals; they seem to have plopped off the conveyor belt of some rather lackluster business school. It is their lack of attention to detail, their lack of true empathy with the brand and the people who work to make it a reality, that has led to this. They have allowed too many niggles to languish, too many bad apples to go unbinned, too many good apples to feel ignored and marginalised, too many brand-sensitive corners to be cut and have left too many heads in too many clouds. Well, it's all fallen to earth now with a bang. Let's see if this knocks a clue into their mediocre MBA brains.

[RichardMannion]

Originally posted by frangipan

All this is not to exculpate VS management. On the contrary, it is clear to even the biggest fanboy that all is not well in Crawley. The management team is banal, uncommunicative, unresponsive and contemptuous. They're clearly not vibrant and passionate aviation professionals; they seem to have plopped off the conveyor belt of some rather lackluster business school. It is their lack of attention to detail, their lack of true empathy with the brand and the people who work to make it a reality, that has led to this. They have allowed too many niggles to languish, too many bad apples to go unbinned, too many good apples to feel ignored and marginalised, too many brand-sensitive corners to be cut and have left too many heads in too many clouds. Well, it's all fallen to earth now with a bang. Let's see if this knocks a clue into their mediocre MBA brains.

I was nodding my head in agreement with your post until I reached the above paragraph. I have to strongly disagree with that sentiment. One has to remember that the crew are just one element of the workforce for Virgin Atlantic, there are also a large number of other skilled people that work for VS that aren't kicking off. Pete and I have spent many a time speaking directly to senior managers and the board of directors at VS about various aspects of VS, in recent times the crew strike has been one of them and it's a very interesting perspective from their angle. Remember there are two sides to every story and it's compelling detail from their perspective that makes me strongly disagree with your comments above. One individual in particular that is very much at the heart of the management team at VS has worked their way through the ranks of the airline world, and has good experiences from people around about the ins and outs of being crew, and overall on how to run an airline. To say they have been plopped off a conveyor belt of some business school is simply unfair and incorrect.

Let me take my mod hat off and be really harsh now, lets take a wander over to cabincrew.com and look at the huge threads of people who are wanting to be cabin crew for VS. I sit and cringe at the standards of some of the written English they use, and their general attitudes. To say some of them aren't the sharpest tools in the drawer would be fair placed. It would be fair to say that some are easily led too. I'm not tarnishing all crew with the same brush now, but the standards are not exactly sky high. Now it only takes a few sour individuals or stirrers with a little more smarts to cause uprest given the 'herd instinct' - they create the propaganda and can cause the unrest, the 'BA earn £10k a year more' aspect, it's a tainted caveat. Now what happens is that they join the union and the union is only there to get a result, as otherwise people will begin to question why they pay a member fee. So combining the herd instinct, the unsharp tool aspect, the slightly smarter sour/stirrer, the union and the scale (4500 crew) and you already have a disaster in the making. No management interaction required.

So flip it round, what should the VS management do? What would you do if you were in there shoes. If it were me, I would have done exactly what they have done to date. There is no real win-win outcome in this situation. There never was.