Tuesday, 7 July 2009

Michael & Willie in clown competition; BA-Ryanair

I will give Ryanair some credit, they believe that they have the market cornered on being cheap. This latest stunt is just incredibly funny; the idea that there can be a ledge to sit on in a plane and no seat.

I cannot for the life of me believe the CAA would ever regulate such a thing on an aeroplane.

No doubt Mr O'Leary knows this too, but he can't help himself in promoting Ryanair as the cheapest of cheap brands.

Good luck to him, I vowed never to fly with them long ago after a truly miserable experience (which did not even involve being able to get on a plane).
Next up though, British Airways look set for another summer of strikes. Willie Walsh, a decent man with a near impossible job, has decided to play hard-ball with the staff. The trouble is they are highly unionised at BA and it seems they think he is lying when he says BA might go under. Well, maybe the staff will get to find out soon enough.
Which of these jovial Irishmen would you rather work for Willie or Michael?

13 comments:

Letters From A Tory said...

Plenty of pain left for BA, that's for sure. Then again, Virgin aren't exactly enjoying life at present and I daresay some US airlines might go under soon as well.

I wonder if the Government can afford any more 'loans' / bailouts....

ken from glos said...

I flew with British Airways just once. The staff all act as if they are a nationalised industry and if they keep thinking that way the the airline will go bust.

I have been watching this company with great interest over the last 4/5 years

Blue Eyes said...

Wasn't there a report the other day which said that BA pays its cabin staff twice as much as Virgin does?!

If BA doesn't give itself a good shake-up today, it will be gone by tomorrow...

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why they don't take the obvious step of offering shares in lieu of salary. After all, you're effectively asking the staff to invest in the uncertain future of the company, so why not give them the same deal as any other speculative investor?

roym said...

I don't get the staff at BA. this sort of industrial action just drags the brand down that little bit further. the last thing they need is the Sky/Beeb cameras at T5 showing people sleeping in the terminal or getting het up at the poor bugger in the front line. Sorry to say it, but they're going to have to take some of the pain, trouble is, coming from WW on whatever million a year it must stick in the craw somewhat.
Perhaps anon is right. share options might incentivise all staff to pull in the same direction?

LFAT, havent the US been propping up United and American for some time now? ive lost count either of those two have been mentioned in the same breath as chapter 11!

CityUnslicker said...

OK to cover all the comments:

GWB put over $15 billion into support the US airlines. They are all really nationalised and many have noted the collapse in service which has followed.

Someof BA's problems are created by the fact that the US and EU heavily subsidise flag carriers and we don't, making long-haul very hard for BA. On short haul they just plain lose to ryanair and easyjet.

Virgin is impacted in a similar way, which is why it is cutting transatlantic routes, not ones to SA or Dubai etc.

BA staff IMHO are some of the last militants in the country and are about to get a huge wake up call. WW is trying to give this, but has missed the nuance of how to do so. The shares idea is a very good one, missing one month of his salary less so.

In BA's defence WW and the execs get paid nothing like other FTSE100's. WW took home under £300k last year; there are juniors at hedge funds who get more without 40,000 staff to manage.

I quite like BA service...oh how I miss the days of business class ot the far east when flat beds first came out. That was very comfy!

Anonymous said...

BA really doesn't need this industrial action on top of the problems they face with T5 and so on. The unions seem keen to take BA down. I guess they believe that even if BA are taken out then the slots will be filled up by other airlines and the employees can't lose. They may be wrong. Times are hard and I can't see short-haul airlines jumping to take over those Heathrow slots when they need to compete with Bryanair and Sleazyjet.

How Bryanair and Sleazyjet seem to have cornered the market in flights from tiny military airfields I don't know. Often I am flying out with these companies when Sleazyjet and Bryanair are the only airlines using those airfields. Often the airfields are in the middle of a city, not out in the middle of nowhere as some claim, and use the same airspace as everybody else. Why aren't the big guys taking them on in their own turf, instead of expecting to compete with them from Heathrow with a heavily unionised staff in a heavily unionised airport?

James Higham said...

How serious do you consider the threat to be?

JPT said...

Neither.

Barking Spider said...

Both of them can stick it.

Obsidian said...

Not sure I can see BA surviving the next 18 months - as for Ryanair, dear god - everytime I read anything about O'Leary I'm put off flying with them. He's certainly aptly named, 'leery' describes my sentiments about Ryanair very well.

Off on a tangent CU, what think you about Sweden setting deposit rates into negative territory?

banned said...

Handy Hint. Fly with another carrier whose staff are not threateneing to ruin your well earned Summer Holidays.

Thomsonfly ( the fleet owned by Thomas Cook ) cut their staff by 15% 18 months ago in anticipation of this years problems, they are now short of cabin crew.

WobblyJim said...

Perhaps RyanAir has taken lessons from some third-world train operators and sees it's future built on planes crammed full of peasants with chickens and goats jammed in the overhead lockers and a camping BBQ set up in the aisles cooking lunch.