Union to challenge removal of BA staff's travel concessions

Point taken Carole, in that case the airline industry is very generous.

It would be a massive blow to lose the national carrier so I just hope a deal can be reached.

Mark I dont think it is free transport. It is highly subsidised like 90% and that is across all airlines as an industry standard perk. BA's individual staff travel perks are not as good as other airlines. Virgin gives their staff quite a few free tickets per year as well as the subsidised travel and other airlines would have their own individual packages. BA only give one free ticket each per year so that would not be used for commuting but they could use their discount for unlimited purchases of discounted tickets on other airlines as well as on BA.

So its not a freebie just a cheapie which of course the airline earns revenue on.

I suppose its the old saying of you get what you pay for. BA is a full service carrier and is pitching itself at that market. The cheap taxi services offered at the other end as an alternative really cant compare. It depend on what you want and what you can afford. I think its good that there is a choice to suit everyone. Problem is how long will that choice be there?

I would ask just one question, do other carriers offer the same 'perks'? Do Virgin, Easyjet, flyBe etc offer free transport to cabin crew to and from the base?

If so then perhaps BA are being a little vindictive in removing this as it would seem a genuine necessity if all carriers accept the need to provide it. If not then BA crew really have no cause for complaint. Perks are nice if you get them but they are just that, a 'freebie' and should not to be relied upon.

Personally i've always thought BA very professional and a bit of a treat, but they are expensive and there lies the fundamental problem, they're not competitive. There used to be a 'battery hen' mentality with budget flights in the early days; cramped, uncomfortable seats, no hot meals, no free movies etc and flying lost a lot of the kudos it had earned over previous years, but grumble as we do which companies are the most successful? Those selling budget flights because in the end money talks.

I think the the employees were actively recruited by the company from those places because of their language skills. Commuting from those places is not really an issue for them when they can use the staff travel. It is common place in the industry to commute from Europe especially with Pilots.

I agree with your comments Kevin about the reliability of booking a holiday with this company whilst all this uncertainty is on going. I don't think anyone is going to "win" this one - there has been too much animosity thrown about publicly for it to end happily and the public are never quite going to look at the crew of a BA plane quite the same again (guilty or not of striking) just as they will never quite trust their loyalty back to the company.

It's quite common for flight crew to live some distance from their base as, particularly if they're long haul crew, they aren't commuting that often. Rostering with a week flying, staying at hotels away from base, followed by a week off, or similar, isn't unusual. Given the costs of moving to and living somewhere handy for Heathrow, I suspect even without free flights, getting a budget flight once or twice a week might be a better option than relocating. But nobody likes to lose a freebie.

I agree regarding the damage done to BA. There seems to be something every year!

I dont think the issue is anything to do with travelling to/from work 'perks'.
My brother in law was a chief purser for BA, the only travel benefits he ever mentioned were discounted/free flights depending on length of service and cheap hotel accomodation at the hotels BA put their crews up in. With his service he could literally ring to find flights and if there was a seat available turn up and get on going anywhere in the world BA flew to........
If you take a job requiring a long journey to get there then thats up to you and should and no doubt would be considered when deciding to take the job or not. The only help I've ever come across was a company provided interest free loan for season tickets.

Absolutely Gareth; if I was even considering applying for a post which required me to travel that far, I would expect it to be MY responsibility to work out how I was going to get there and if it was feasible in the the first place. Welcome to the real world BA staff.

To be honest, if I lived that far away that I needed to fly to work, I would get another job. I travel 17 1/2 miles to work and that is far enough, and I pay my own travel expences as well. I would not even consider taking a job the other side of the country, unless I was proposing to relocate.
Perhaps like Kevin, the point is being missed, but it does seem a bit of an own goal by the union/BA employees!

I do not think, in fact know I am not missing the point, I live way outside of
London but travel into London to work I get up at 5 and get home around 8 at my expence, out of my hard earned salary. BA staff do not use the free travel to travel to and from work, its a perk that they have forfitted by their strike action.
I agree with Gwyneth, why would you go with a Company who's unions are causing massive disruption, you would look at other carriers and use them, I also see that the BA unions was trying to force other carriers into this dispute.
I for one currently would not consider useing BA to travel with because of the Union, like thousands of others of who are booking with other carriers, this will place BA in a situation which is not workable and will have to either shrink in size reducing the labour force, or worse still close down, what happens then.
I agree that BA and the Unions need to continue the talks, but there is only so much cash on the table.

I think everyone is missing the point! From what I understand the employees that have lost their staff travel perks cannot get to work anyway because they either live too far away from base (London) or in Europe and need those perks to be able to afford the travel! So they have nothing to loose now and the unions have to keep fighting for them.

What I cant understand is why the company is prepared to sacrifice its reputation and go on loosing millions of pounds in revenue in lost bookings and possible business and disruption if this goes to another strike, all for the sake of a principle for a hundred (or less) of these employees. WW needs his head examined.

Is it me, but this appears to be a bit of an'own goal' here? The unions are striking for better benefits and conditions, but the strikes are jeopardising customers' faith in the company. If booking a holiday that you have spent the last year + saving for are you really going to take the risk of loosing the holiday to industrial action?
If the customers are driven away, then the already cash strapped business fails and the only benefits the employees will be in receipt of will be the ones handed out by the Job centre +.

Does striking and causing severe distress and cancellation of peoples hard earned holidays breach the European Human Rights Legislation. Am not a union basher, but am fed up to the back teath of people crying wolf every time they are hit with something they have caused themselves, that they do not like. Hundreds of people have lost their holidays due to the strike, they will get compensation in the end granted, so the union looses their free flights due to industrial action and they scream its unfair.
BA need to sit down and thrash this out I agree, but there is only so much money in the pot, if the company cannot pay, what can they do.