An anonymous op-ed in The Guardian by a British Airways pilot explains why pilots are striking. Personally, I don’t think the pilot advances his cause.
In short, the unidentified British Airways pilots says it is an issue of respect and fear.
One of my colleagues has summed it up as a question of respect. I would also add an element of fear.
In the past 10 or 20 years, pilot workloads have significantly increased – as is the case across much of the economy – and at the same time our pay and pensions have been significantly reduced. As the industry has reinvented its former state-run companies into private enterprises we’ve faced below-market pay rises and a hollowing out of pension provision. During all of this process we’ve been told the increased productivity was necessary to ensure our future and create sufficient profit to be able to reinvest. We accepted these sacrifices with the promise that, when they bore fruit, and profit was available, we would then share in that success.
I sense there is broad sympathy for this line of argumentation. While tone-deaf British Airways CEO Alex Cruz gave himself a £530,000 pay raise in 2017 (a 61% bump), he is now saying that British Airways cannot afford to give pilots more than 11.5% over three years. But general sympathy does not necessarily translate into acute sympathy once the specifics are examined.
The pilot continues:
The investment in new aircraft, seats and service levels have all had much publicity. The share buybacks and shareholder dividends, not so much – but they have been substantial, as have the eye-watering increases in senior management remuneration.
So the reason for the dispute is that we feel the potentially below-inflation pay offer, as the company makes record profits, does not respect our previous loyalty and “investment” in BA’s success.
The pilot also shares fears that British Airways is moving in a direction of “contractors” over hiring new pilots, a way to avoid sick pay, paid holidays, and job protection.
As the public has also endured cutbacks to onboard service levels, I’m not sure if questioning investment in new seats or service levels is the way to sway public opinion…
An Issue of Fairness, Not Fear Or Respect
But that’s not my main concern wtih this op-ed. Let’s turn back to the opening paragraph of the op-ed:
Why are pilots earning six-figure salaries going on strike? On the face of it, I do a highly respected and sought-after job and I am paid handsomely for it. Yet this week I am going to strike, and I feel hugely conflicted. My heart feels that I do not want to inflict a strike on British Airways, to which I have given the lion’s share of my working life; or on my passengers, for whom I make safety and commercial decisions every working day.
Why start with this? 93% of British Airways pilots voted in favor of the strike. Why start on the defensive? Why start by saying that your heart does not want to strike when your heart very clearly tells you the opposite: that BA is underpaying you?
Since the pilot admits to already being “paid handsomely” already and feeling “conflicted” about the strike, his (or her) argument is immediately undermined. I question whether the average British family has all that much sympathy for a pilot paid handsomely and offered lucrative benefits. But everyone can sympathize over broken promises.
This strike is about money. Why not just be clear about it? Pilots feel that profit should be returned to them. It is that simple. The issue is not that they need more money now, but that they feel entitled to a greater share of the pie on the basis of past sacrifice and promise from management.
CONCLUSION
This isn’t an issue fear, as the strike has crippled British Airways. This isn’t an issue of respect, which implies British Airways legally owes them nothing. Rather, this is an issue of perceived fairness and broken promises. And it’s not an unreasonable argument. That’s the argument pilots should stick to.
image: British Airways
you’re a bit of a right-winger, aren’t you Matthew? I don’t say that with a bad intention, just something I’ve noticed having read your blog for quite some time now!
I would say my views are more nuanced than a right-left binary.
I’m in favor of the BA pilots here…because if Cruz can afford to give himself a 60% pay increase, then pilots should certainly be given more than few crumbs…That said, I think they are paid handsomely already.
Certainly not. This isn’t some utopia in which profits are to be shared. These pilots are on huge salaries already; the 11.5% offer is far in excess of the forecast cost of living index increase.
They would do well to accept this generous offer and set aside the pathetic “ poor-hard-done-by us” arguments. No one’s buying this crap from these overly compensated elites, and the public will not be thrilled by the huge disruption they’ve caused.
You have absolutely no idea what the heck you are talking about!!!
Come work for BA for a few years, and then you might learn a thing or two, what hippy job do you do where you don’t care about, pay or profit share.
It is a simple case of perception. The pilots refused a pay offer way in excess of what the majority of its customers receive and expect to get support. They won’t. Regarding the economic argument, can I presume it states somewhere in the pilots contract that their pay is linked to profits? If not, they haven’t got a leg to stand on. There are other airlines they could work for, what’s that I hear you say….but the pay and conditions aren’t so inviting.
Matthew is an unqualified blogger who has absolutely no aviation qualification in an industry where qualification, experience and expertise is everything.
Only those that know absolutely nothing about aviation listen to his myopic opinion…..not fact.
His claim to be an “aviation expert” is based on being a regular passenger who blogs.
LOL. Thanks Pete.
The tenor of this op-ed is culturally apposite, I feel, and reflects an emotional appeal to the left-leaning readership of the left-leaning Guardian. A more strident defence of the pecuniary basis for this strike, although perhaps more honest, would be unlikely to resonate in this arena, hence the defensive posturing. It will be interesting to witness how this plays out . . . I suspect Paolo is correct in his assessment of public opinion, which is unlikely to be favourable.
I would concur that your views (as expressed in this blog, at least) are more nuanced than conventional left/right binarity, Matthew – I wouldn’t read it otherwise.