Originally posted by southernbelle
Egg and VS45 I hear what you are saying, but as someone who voted no to a strike I felt like I had been punched in the stomach when I received the letter. I have spent a lot of time reading all the posts to get a balanced point of view when casting any votes and agreed with the majority of members on here, to vote no to strike but go into the next negotiations much stronger. Subsequently I have lost the chance of a half decent pay rise so am guessing I am back to 2% and then get Richard basically telling me if I don't like it leave. I think Richard's letter will have done more harm than good.
Southernbelle - You probably already know you're loved by the V-Flyers who have encountered your legendary service onboard, so you should consider yourself one of the 'good guys' at VS.
Reading between the lines of Richard's statement, I think I am beginning to really understand what he meant. As you know, BA crew are on a way-above-industry-standard average salary, the last CAA figures in 2006 putting them at an average of £27.9K compared to pretty much every one else at an average of around £15K-£16K. Because there has been so much comparison by crew and the union to BA, I think what SRB means is that shooting for those kind of salaries is simply unaffordable for Virgin.
Using the CAA figures, it's pretty easy to see why. 2006 CAA figures say VS crew get an average £13.3K. As there are about 4500 crew at VS, in order to match the BA salaries, VS would have to find an additional 4500 x £14.6K per year - that's nearly £66m. Given their profit this year was barely £4m (mostly due to the Virgin Nigeria 'investment'), you can easily see why £66m is unaffordable.
The interesting comparison in the CAA figures (and I acknowledge the poster on PPRuNe for picking up on this) is that the only other full-service scheduled operator out of main UK airports, bmi, pay even less than Virgin, with an average £12.9K. BA, as I understand it, have their industry-busting salaries for historical reasons and previous disputes. Most acknowledge that they are the exception rather than the rule, and it would be commercial suicide for any other airline to attempt to match those kind of rates because only BA has the huge economies of scale that could afford them. bmi, on the other hand, are of a more comparable size to Virgin, and their salaries appear to be more in line.
The majority of the rest of the airlines listed are the charters, who sit in the £15K-£16K range, with a blip from EasyJet at £19.3K. I suspect the right thing to do for Virgin would be to move their average to the middle of the £15-£16K pack, but that will still cost them an additional £9m per year - and with competition from Open Skies looming, I can kind of see why they are resistant to large increases in costs. All things being equal in 2008, an additional £9m pay demand would put them about £5m in the red.
