If BA do not change their own course of action, fast, they might not either.
Just my opinion, but I still think BA might be forced to go to the government for support, as per my prediction on this thread back in the spring. Having seen the way they’re shafting staff in order to “finish the job” with getting all cabin crew’s wages down, I’m not sure it’s morally correct to provide assistance. I also noted Willie’s words when he boasted about not needing government support around the time VS went to the government.
And the current situation is pretty much the antithesis of free-market capitalism. The catastrophe underway in the airline industry, along with substantially all travel-related sectors, can be attributed to government decisions to attempt to address a pandemic. Governments closing borders, ordering companies to close shops/factories/offices, restricting movement, etc. -- that isn't capitalism.
It’s why a few months ago on this thread I argued the government had an obligation to provide some sort of support to VS and others as they had a role in putting them and others in dire straits with the lockdowns and “do not travel” messaging (even though back in late-March I didn’t think the pandemic would run for as long as it has). I should have known better though given it’s been British government policy for pretty much the entirety of VS’ existence to not stand in the way of trouble companies from failing and unlikely to change even they soon no longer have the EU state aid excuse to hide behind.
It's Walsh that is the reason BA have not done what most of their competitors have, all across the world and for BA staff, the intolerable sight of this even including IAG members.
I wish he had pissed off in March like he should have.
In my nearly 20 years on here, if BA have done something to screw up, that was theirs and only their fault, I don't believe I have defended it. Since many things that go wrong are multi factored, the obvious examples being issues at LHR or LGW, it can mean lively debate.
Some things ARE clear cut though.
Walsh's behavior towards BA (and only BA of all IAG staff) since this crisis began and Branson's massively poor optics of asking for public money from a tax haven island.
Then again, what do I care he has a tax haven island since he didn't get any public money, not nice to find out via the media that BA, to raise money, are selling off their fine art collection.
Their WHAT? I am struggling to write this without extensive use of profanity, like a script from 'Veep' or 'Succession'. So all these these when we were told how we were too costly (while we were in effect subsidizing much of IAG), they spunked money on.......paintings?
Not shuttered the palace of stupid ideas that is Waterside yet? Why? They were planning to shift some of them over to base before all of this.
I do not wish to comment on my own situation, only that it is uncertain, let's just say the level of trust i have with my management is about the same as I have for Walsh.
While I know if not for him, that would probably not be the case, their necks are on the line too.
But that doesn't really make much difference to me does it? Just as Branson's latest financial woes don't either.