To everyone (inc. Cabin Crew), or just senior management?!:confused:

To everyone I believe

Without actually being able to see/read a copy of their contract for myself, and I assume that you have not either because you seem to make a fairly generalised statement above, so I am unable to directly answer on this particular point without having the necessary resources to actually look at.

Nevertheless, I have just spent a few moments reviewing my work contract as I am given certain travel benefits at work, and it clearly states that travel benefits are a concession and not a right (Rule 1), but it does not state that they can be withdrawn at anytime and for any reason. What it does say is that “deliberte dishonesty” will result in dismissal from the company.

Threatening and actually taking someone’s travel benefits away for going on a legally conducted strike is an unfair and punitive measure designed simply to scare those workers that were thinking of going on strike in to not doing so (just because they didn’t go on strike, doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t support those that did!), and of course it was done to further increase the divisons between work colleagues, in an attempt to sure up support for their side of the argument.

Cloud 9…I would imagine that the items in BA contracts regarding staff travel are similar to each of the 4 carriers I have worked for which all clearly stated that staff travel was a non contractural benefit that could be withdrawn at any time

oh well..looks like I’ll be working on clapped out 767’s for another year

Hi Parsley – so Boeing made a bad business forecast – no one dead though.
My bet’s on Boeing winning.
Maybe some of their third party suppliers are from countries like India and Japan (many more countries involved of course) so maybe if AI ‘kick’ Boeing what you are advocating is that Boeing ‘kick’ the suppliers harder. Not a great global trading result all round is it? More like an ‘ignorant trading war.

In one of my recent posts I mention that with any new innovation (a huge one – this new 787 project) new tests have to be invented, designed, written, modified and even after certification testing will I hope go on for years.

Engineers and scientists have to set parameters based on known data for these new materials and create tests. Some of these new materials on the 787 have not been exposed to the usage the 787 is putting them to (e.g. exposed to the elements at high stress levels).

The recent incident given Boeing’s own recent statement (see my previous post) is being resolved mechanically and with some changes to software (monitoring software very likely) and Boeing are working with the primary suppliers on this.

AI need to get their act together – do they want a fight in court with one of the world’s greatest engineering giants or to run an airline making money (maybe slightly less due to higher fuel costs) by using interim alternative aircraft.

AI definitely will not get the money they are asking for as there is nothing equivalent they can buy.

Sensible negotiation and a working compromise with a safe and hopefully still friendly Boeing is the option I would hope AI see fit to take.

But with respect what has what subcontractor Boeing use got to do with the customer ?…the customer signed on the dotted line with Boeing not whoever Boeing choose to subcontract work to…I think you are missing the point that when the customer signed on the dotted line Boeing committed to deliver the plane by a certain date..what is ignorant about a customer expecting to get their product when the supplier said they would deliver it ?

and yes I know all about the testing,new materials etc..but clearly as regards delivering the finished product to the customer Boeing were rather foolish in promising delivery dates they couldn’t keep (or quoting dates before they knew exactly how long it would take to put this aircraft in service)

Hi Parsley I am sure both parties’ lawyers will be hard at it, but I think in this day and age supply chains can be ‘king’ and I am sure Boeing have gone as hard against their suppliers as they possibly can.
I am repeating myself Boeing does NOT wish these delays at all, but have to abide by prioritising passenger safety before profit. Any reversal of these priorities and there will be no Boeing in a few years, as lives will be lost.
Instead I think negotiation and compromise between the supposed aggrieved airlines and Boeing as to operating alternative ‘interim’ high quality Boeing aircraft at highly preferential leasing rates is a way forward.
Nothing will come by AI or any other airline bloodying their noses by going tooth and nail against Boeing who will simply keep legally stalling them using their lawyers until the 787 rolls out. When that day arrives the new customers will grab at the 787 and overtake the antagonistic airlines.
Many US airlines have deferred their planned purchase date of their 787s.
See my post quoting the URL of several business analysts’ comments.
I particularly like the one which ends with the ….High Barriers to Entry”
This is Boeing’s salvation for a long time yet.
Airbus will win some orders in the meantime but lets see if when the A350 roll out time comes if it’s a ‘piece of cake’ or otherwise.

yes I see what you are saying but I think the prioritising safety against profit is something of a red herring…no airline company would expect to take delivery of an aircraft that isn’t anything other than fully certified as safe and fit for purpose….what Boeing have done however is tell their early customers that the aircraft would be in service by a certain date before they had real understanding themselves of the time frame involved to actually get it into service (or even flying)..and I certainly don’t think customers are “supposed aggrieved”..there are some customers out there who are very very very hacked off with the situation…the public remarks from ANA in the last week bearing testament to that

Clawing back money can leave business relationships very soured.
There are other ways to ‘skin this cat’, preferential rates on temporary alternatives with buy back options,etc.
Do the companies want to run an airline business or make war with Boeing is what it finally comes down to?
It is far better that Boeing make a very safe, innovative aircraft and when they deliver it there may be losses for a period but once the 787 is accepted for what is really is then business picks up again.
Anybody care to recall way back the disaster of the Airbus prototype crash at Le Bourget Paris Air Show. They’ve come a long way since then haven’t they ?
The old fashioned word ‘break even point’ may shift into later deliveries but for Boeing to shift into high gear of the Commercial World of aviation – so what?
Boeing make good aircraft and they will wish to keep it that way, that’s enough of a mission statement “To push the leading edge of aviation, taking huge challenges doing what others cannot do”.
Do you think that Boeing’s employees or long term customers doubt this statement?
Good customers/airlines must recognise that although the economic recession isn’t what’s directly causing Boeing’s 787 delays – the impact of ‘shoddy’ workmanship on third party supplied products makes quality assurance a very expensive and unwieldy task.

Jay

You seem to be saying that the customers should just accept this and not upset Boeing ?

although the customers may well recognise Boeing’s mission statement and want a fully tested and safe aircraft they also are to say the least not going to be happy that an aeroplane they signed for with a quoted delivery date of such and such is not going to be in service at least 2 years later than promised…substantial costs are going to be passed to Boeing (and were probably prewritten in to many contracts)..prehaps not at the levels that AI are claiming but items such as extending leases on aircraft the 787 was going to replace or the cost of leasing in aircraft…you can also be sure that if a company has to operate for an extra two years a 767 which should have been replaced by a shiny 787 they are going to try and get their extra operating costs on that 767 (i.e.extra fuel burn – 20% more,maintenance etc) for that 2 year period.

No major carrier is in a position to just shrug their shoulders and accept the situation..the fact that the launch customer ANA (what could be classed a loyal and substantial Boeing customer) is now making very loud noises about their general displeasure with the situation would bear this out.

Bottom line: when it is finally flying in revenue service, it will be lighter than any aluminum airplane that is the same size.

It’s true they haven’t met their goals, and that they have mismanaged the airplane, but it’s still a revolutionary airplane. 3% or 6% really doesn’t matter that much to the big picture when it is lighter than any aluminum competitor.

I think you’ll find that a fuel burn of 3-6% more than promised over a year on say a fleet of 10-15 aircraft will actually matter quite a lot in the big picture to airline accountants

In the real world I live in I don’t believe everything I read on the internet.

My point (somewhat lost by now) was that just because a website says something is ‘suspended’, doesn’t mean it is actually ‘suspended’.

Optimism lives on:p

Well I suppose you can only go on the fact that the website is produced by the official regulatory body for the UK and that info regarding if a particular aircraft has the appropriate permit is updated on a very regular basis (usually within 2-3 days)