
British Airways pilots ground planes in unprecedented 48-hour strike - hhs
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iag-british-airways-strike/british-airways-pilots-ground-planes-in-unprecedented-48-hour-strike-idUSKCN1VT0V7
======
Jaruzel
From a summary of the issue I heard on LBC (UK radio station) a couple of days
ago, this all stems from when the pilots agreed to a pay and pensions cut
several years ago when BA was in financial trouble, and now that BA (and it's
new parent company) is now back in profit, they want an inflation adjusted
boost to put their pay and pensions back to where they should be.

~~~
philjohn
Precisely this ... the problem in the UK media is this is being portrayed as
"Evil high paid pilots holding the company hostage and ruining your holiday!".

------
ilaksh
It would be really interesting to know what the actual profits are and what
percentage currently goes to the pilots versus executives and operational
costs etc.

Google says they reported $2 billion in profit. Say $300 million was given to
1000 pilots. That would be $300,000 each.

They probably got something like a few thousand pounds pay increase and are
feeling like it's not adding up.

I'm routing for the pilots.

~~~
DrJokepu
British Airways Plc is a publicly traded company, so you know, a lot of this
information is publicly available:

[https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01777777/filing-h...](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01777777/filing-
history)

Look at the account filings. Not sure if they will break down how much they
pay pilots altogether, but there should be data about executive pay and
employee wages and salaries.

I’m also rooting for the pilots, by the way.

~~~
relue271
I’m in favor of pilots, and flight personnel in general, being paid
handsomely. The last thing the public needs is flight personnel being
disgruntled about not being paid enough.

I want the peace of mind that the people making my flight happen are
incredibly happy.

~~~
barry-cotter
And yet revealed preference suggests that people shop for flights almost
exclusively on price. If you feel like paying an extra hundred or five for
happier employees that’s a fine personal preference but people who act like
that aren’t a significant enough market segment to be worth catering to.

~~~
TeMPOraL
"Revealed preferences" need to die. That people shop on price, all other
things being equal, is obvious and the driver of the economy. If all else is
not equal, but people don't know it or can't meaningfully affect it, they'll
still shop on price and any talk of "revealed preferences" here is nonsense.

A typical flyer is separated by _at least_ one layer of abstraction (airline,
travel agency, ...) from the labor situation of the flight crew, so there's
little visibility into that, and little possibility to affect things with your
purchasing choice. How can I "reveal" the real ordering of my preferences if I
can't pay $X extra to get a slightly safer flight, because the only other
option on the market costs $10X more? At the same time, there's high trust
that government organizations ensure that civilian flight is safe to the point
any variation is a rounding error not worth thinking about.

~~~
yostrovs
A typical flyer is not concerned about the pay of pilots. He's concerned about
his price to fly. Those that are concerned about pay do so regardless of
whether they're flying. They do it because they root for the little guy, or
they hate corporations, or they respect pilots. But the point is the two
groups are different. They do overlap somewhat, but it's meaningless.

------
_Understated_
Genuine question here... why is this on HN? It has nothing to do with
software, hardware or even tech of any kind!

~~~
kerng
Interesting business news are always appreciated.

------
privateSFacct
Anyone know standard time working per month? I thought these major carriers
had pretty cushy hours / benefts - (ie, 80 hrs / month, good flight and other
benefits).

~~~
chrisjshull
I don’t know, but does it matter? If an employee group understands how much
they are worth, and can get more benefits commensurate with that worth, then I
applaud them.

~~~
viraptor
At some point it does. If they're being underpaid, that's one issue. If
they're aware that they're currently irreplaceable and able to effectively
hold the company hostage, that's a different one.

~~~
baddox
I don’t see much of a problem as long as the company is still making a profit.
The striking workers could strike until they’re receiving all the company’s
profit, at which point it would be as if they’re receiving the actual value of
their labor. Not that crazy of an idea.

~~~
listenallyall
This is a ridiculous statement. The "actual value" of the striking workers
(pilots) labor is " _ALL_ the company's profit?" Nobody else -- mechanics,
flight crew, reservations agents, IT staff, marketing, execs -- deserves a
piece? What about investors -- by definition, nobody invests in a company
designed to not return a profit.

~~~
baddox
Of course I don’t mean that one specific subset of employees (e.g. pilots)
deserve all the profits distributed to them at the expense of other employees.
Ideally all the workers of a firm would be organized together, but I’m aware
that this isn’t the current reality of this situation.

And money used to pay back loans wouldn’t be considered “profit” in any
definitions I’m familiar with. If the “investment” takes some other form such
that the investor expects to be paid back a lot more due to employees being
paid much less than the value they’re delivering, then yeah, I’m fine with the
employees organizing and saying that’s not going to happen.

~~~
listenallyall
>> I’m fine with the employees organizing and saying that’s not going to
happen

This is even more ridiculous. Is YComb (since we're on HN) not entitled to a
positive return from the companies it helped found, just because some random
group of employees claims they aren't being paid according to the "value
they're delivering"?

~~~
baddox
I never used the word “entitled.” I think if an investor is extracting surplus
value from employees of one of their portfolio companies, the employees of
that company should be free to attempt to organize to regain as much of that
surplus value as they can.

~~~
listenallyall
You are backtracking. The initial statement you wrote said that the value of
the worker's labor = ALL the company's profit. If the workers "regain" it all,
there's nothing left for an investor/founder. Since this is the scenario you
endorse (you've said so three times), your position is that investors and
founders should not receive any return on their investment, nor any gains from
establishing the company in the first place.

~~~
baddox
> The initial statement you wrote said that the value of the worker's labor =
> ALL the company's profit.

I didn't say that. I said that I don't have a problem with workers organizing
to ask for more compensation so long as the company is earning profit. I
didn't say anyone is "entitled" to anything and I didn't even predict whether
or not the efforts would work.

> If the workers "regain" it all, there's nothing left for an
> investor/founder.

I addressed investors already. Money used to pay back a loan is not what I
consider "profit," in the same way that money used to pay for office
electricity is not what I consider "profit." Obviously companies have to pay
their bills. As for founders, I assume they're functioning essentially as the
manager/employer and thus are the party that is negotiating with the organized
labor of their company. I'm not prescribing some amount of money they get to
keep versus their employees—that's precisely what the negotiations will
determine.

> Since this is the scenario you endorse (you've said so three times), your
> position is that investors and founders should not receive any return on
> their investment, nor any gains from establishing the company in the first
> place.

I have said that zero times and have now explicitly refuted it twice, lest
there be any confusion about what I am claiming.

~~~
listenallyall
>> until they’re receiving all the company’s profit, at which point it would
be as if they’re receiving the actual value of their labor

Your first comment clearly states that the value of labor is all the company's
profit. ALL. You wrote it. "receiving ALL the company's profit" = "receiving
the actual value of their labor". Which means, it's only possible for the
airline to show a profit by underpaying labor, and therefore existence of
profit = investors are exploiting labor for "surplus value." As long as you
stand by the initial statement, everything that follows is crazy-talk, whether
or not you're able to follow the logic of your own statements from a to b to
c.

~~~
baddox
I didn't say that. Truly. Try to copy and paste me saying that, and you'll
find that I did not say it.

------
wayanon
Pretty amazing to be on a 6 figure salary and still strike.

~~~
tehjoker
The fundamental unfairness of employment is that your masters skim off the top
of your labor's true value and give you less than you are worth to line their
pockets. The pilots are within the bounds of fairness to demand up to the full
value of their labor.

~~~
listenallyall
I am not taking sides in this dispute, I am sure the pilots do have some valid
grievances. However "the full value of their labor" cannot be realized without
a) planes to fly, b) a system for taking reservations, assigning people to
seats, and collecting revenue, c) a maintenance staff to keep the planes
functioning and safe, d) flight scheduling, purchasing/leasing gates at
hundreds of airports (many international), financing fuel purchases, and much,
much more.

Obviously, flying planes is a valuable skill. But without the enormous support
system that the airline itself provides, pilots would have little opportunity
to realize that value.

~~~
spraak
> Obviously, flying planes is a valuable skill. But without the enormous
> support system that the airline itself provides, pilots would have little
> opportunity to realize that value.

Then you're over-identifying what the value of their labor is. If what they
need to do requires the support of others, don't factor the input of others
into "the full value of their labor".

I.e. if the total value of the airline is X, and the value the pilots provides
is P, and the value that all the other employees provide is N, where N + P =
X, then the full value of the pilots labor is still P, not X. So I take it to
mean they're wanting to get 100% of P.

~~~
listenallyall
>> N + P = X

It's much more complicated than that. One of the beautiful things about
business, or any cooperative effort, is that the sum of the group/company is
worth more than the sum of value of individual effort. 2+2=5, if you will.

The problem, when it comes to human nature, is that once the total value is
determined (market cap, annual profit, ROI, etc), individuals tend to over-
estimate the value of their individual contribution.

It is not just airlines. Uber drivers say they provide the rides, there would
be no service without their effort. Uber says nobody was paying you to drive
before we launched our platform. Both are correct. Foxconn employees say we're
building all these damn iPhones, no other facility or workers can produce at
this volume. Apple says if we didn't design and market such a popular product
you'd have nothing to build. Again, both are correct. A film director says,
look, the movie I made grossed $400 million -- and the studio replies, which
you could have never made without the $100 million budget we risked, up front.

