Pro Cuts Rally Today 14/05

[thomastillingthe3rd]

Wow i think some of our Forum members must be down there, the silent majority apparently.....

350 people have turned up, yes thats 350. Even better I am being told that the BBC news are being pressured not to film the rally, and to show pictures only on the local BBC London news later.

It has been suggested to the Sky News editors that they ignore the story entirely.

maybe the numbers will swell later !!!! ????

[Marmora Man]

Better 350 sensible and well informed people than 35,000 ill informed and screeching anti capitalists / anarchists.

And no - I wasn't there.

[Loz]

"What do we want?"

"What we've got!"

"When do we want it?"

"Um - we've got it already."

A bit pointless really.

[thomastillingthe3rd]

"what do we want......"

Britain's bosses are pocketing an increasing portion of the nation's income, according to a report from the High Pay Commission to be published tomorrow. As the majority of people in the country face the largest drop in household income for three decades, a tiny minority at the top are awarding themselves a growing slice of the UK's wealth.

The top one thousandth of the British working population currently receives 5 per cent of the country's earnings, a ratio equivalent to that in the 1940s, the report says. If these trends continue, income for the highest paid will account for 14 per cent of the country's total by 2030 ? the same proportion as in 1900.

The independent commission was set up in November to scrutinise the rising pay of those at the top. Its first report concludes that during the decade Labour was in power, income at the top grew by 64.2 per cent, while that of an average earner increased by 7.2 per cent over the same period.

"when do we want it ......now "

"Management cuts increase our profitability, give them separate pay deals, and screw the rest of the population......"

come on boys and girls of the 'right n liberal wings' get those banners up up up.

THIS MARCH WAS ORGANISED BY SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST REDUCED DIVIDENDS

[StraferJack]

Not patronizing in any way. Not to mention wrong. Many of the 35000 maybe wrong but screeching anti capitalists is pretty offensive I would say. Not offensive in a "you can't say that" way. Just in a "speaks poorly of you" way

[Huguenot]

Is there an organisation called 'Shareholders Against Reduced Dividends'? Really? I don't know if you have a clue how dividends work, but I can assure you that in the current climate shareholders are looking for reinvestment and growth, not paltry and unsatisfying penny dividends.

Is this some kind or ironic in-joke? If so, why the shouty capitals?

Is there some sort of confusion over 'cuts'? Whilst you may want a campaign to stop cuts the public sector, you really don't have a mandate to campaign over activity in the private sector.

I wish private sector unions all the joy in the world in that, but the evidence is they're up against economics not against bad attitudes. BA is losing money, and if they hadn't resolved the conflict, BA would have gone bust, and they'd all be out of a job.

Even the NUS knew tuition fees had to come in, they just preferred to pay it back in an unworkable graduate tax, rather than the staged loan system that's been chosen.

Over 70% of the private sector revenue and 50% of UK jobs and GDP are in small and medium sized businesses. These guys aren't making cuts to benefit shareholders, they're struggling to make ends meet. It's no good protesting against them, it's like protesting against the fat cats running your local playschool.

35%+ of UK GDP is public sector, leaving really a pretty insiginifcant 10% to 15% in 'big business'.

So not only is your campaign against cuts to pay shareholder dividends largely misguided, it's also a bit pointless.

My advice is to stop thinking you're a cast member of 80's throwback 'Wall Street' and do something constructive with your life.

Honestly tt3, you come across as a poorly informed, rather shouty perpetual stoodent. You're quite prepared to accuse others of 'dishonesty' whilst liberally sprinkling your own posts with propaganda you made up in your own head.

[thomastillingthe3rd]

christ your arrogant .... why cut and paste such nonsense.

half a million people mate and your AV vote down the toilet.......got it yet ?

re-invetsment and growth!!!!! what an utter load of junk. i'm out.

[Chippy Minton]

Huguenot - you're quite prepared to accuse others of being poorly informed yet you state BA is losing money. It is not. BA posted a healthy profit last year despite the cost of strikes, the ash cloud, snow, weak economy etc!

[Marmora Man]

Strange, I now find almost all posts, except those of TT3 more persuasive - perhaps because they tend to quote verifiable facts and are written in a clear and lucid style

[Huguenot]

Chippy Minton, thanks for your contribution.

BA Net loss 2010 - 425m GBP (Four hundred and twenty five million pounds)

BA Net loss 2009 - 358m GBP

Chippy Minton Net Loss - credibility.

If you have data that I'm not familiar with, I'd be pleased to get it. Would that count as insider trading?

[thomastillingthe3rd]

here it is oh wise sage !

Profit before tax of ?158 million (2009: loss of ?292 million)

Revenue up ?345 million due to improved yields

Costs down 1.5 per cent

Operating profit of ?298 million (2009: loss of ?111 million)

Quarter 2 operating profit of ?370 million (2009: loss of ?17 million)

In short thats a

A half-year profit of ?158m ($252m), its first in two years.

Which means Huguenot Credibility , steady at 0 , as usual.

[Jeremy]

thomastillingthe3rd, you are slightly confused.

?158 million was for the first half of the 2010/2011 tax year. I don't believe that their full 2010/2011 profits have been announced yet.

Last year (2009/2010) they made a loss.

[StraferJack]

TT3 is a bit like silverfox

No matter which side of a debate they reside on you hope against hope it?s not the same side as you

[Jeremy]

Lack of dividends is not necessarily a bad thing (take a look at Apple).

But ultimately, if you are a shareholder and you're unhappy about not receiving a dividend, sell your shares and invest in something else. You've not actually lost anything.

[Loz]

Unless you invested in Northern Rock...

[Huguenot]

tt3 your lack of insight into company operations has no bounds.

You've chosen to quote 'operating profit' which has all the merit of saying 'I'm really rich before I pay my bills'. It's like saying 'I didn't spend a penny this month because I put it all on my credit card'. Idiot.

I bet your own salary (assuming you work) would be really big if you didn't have to pay income tax and national insurance.

My own company has a gross profit margin approaching 65% of sales. I should be a billionnaire. I'm not, because then I have to pay my bills.

You clearly don't have a bloody clue.

[Huguenot]

I've looked a little deeper into their 'Operating Profit' and discovered it doesn't include the leasing costs of the planes.

So BA are saying 'we'd run a really profitable airline if we didn't have to pay for the planes'.

With that in mind, don't quote operating profits for BA and expect anything but scorn.

Muppet.

[Chippy Minton]

BA profit before tax for the period 1 April 2010 ? 30 September 2010 (which I think was the last announcment made by BA) was ?158 million. The effective tax rate for the period was 27 per cent. Source - British Airways http://press.ba.com/?p=1517

Again, BA is not losing money.

[Huguenot]

And blow me down if that's due to the implmentation of changes that the unions were trying so hard to block.

[Chippy Minton]

Is that your way of admitting BA isn't losing money and if they hadn't resolved the dispute, BA wouldn't have gone bust?

[Huguenot]

Three points on that one.

First is that no dividend was paid - so that reinforces the point that tt3's rant on business raping the worker to pay dividends was absolute nonsense.

Second is that these interim results are a direct result of forcing throught the changes that the unions were blocking.

Here's WW on the issue:

"Our concerted efforts to introduce permanent structural change across the airline has led to a reduction in non-fuel costs and a return to profitability. Revenue has increased, driven primarily by yield improvements and, while fuel costs have risen, they are in line with our expectations.

"Our focus on permanent structural change will continue. This summer we agreed a new productivity deal with our Heathrow terminal-based staff that will provide a more flexible, cost-efficient and customer focused ground operation. In addition, the first of the cabin crew recruited on new terms and conditions have completed training and start flying on Monday."

Thirdly is that one swallow doesn't make a summer, and that figure doesn't include tax - so is not a net profit figure (did you read my point on that?).

You'd need four more years of those kind of results to make up the losses of the previous two years.

[Chippy Minton]

I know ?158 million is a net figure - that is why I said it was the profit before tax (did you read my point on that?).

I never said BA hadn't made losses in the past. I never said BA won't make losses in the future. The fact of the matter is BA is not currently losing money. Why can't you admit that you were wrong to state that it is?

Also, please explain how the company can force through changes and the union block them at the same time?

[Huguenot]

You appear to be trying to win a fight by moving the goalposts.

tt3's original premise was that cuts are being championed by shareholders campaigning against reduced dividends.

The BA dispute started a couple of years ago when it became apparent the the airline was going to be attracting losses of half a billion a year. The senior management knew a serious restructure was on the cards, demanding increases in efficiency.

I have pointed out that within that context, the 'cuts' were hardly demanded by greedy shareholders looking to increase dividends, but by a failing organisation delivering heady losses.

tt3 has tried to dispute this by claiming an 'operating profit' figure that has little relevance to the overall corporate picture, and excludes leasing, costs of finance and tax.

You've tried to disprove this point by claiming that interim results points out an improving business. However these are EBITDA figures, not net profit (and hence do not reflect upon the 'real' profits of the organisation), and no dividend has been paid. So tt3's assertions are still proved incorrect.

What do you want me to admit? I have never asserted anything about the interim results, the only thing I have pointed out is that a characterisation of BA as rich based on 'operating profits' in 2009/10 was invalid.

Positive signs in the interim EBITDA figures does not as profitable company define, it isn't a 'healthy profit' since we don't know what the profit is, and reducing a 1 billion overdraft to 900m could hardly characterise BA as 'rich'

Unlike yourself I'm not attempting to win a petty battle about whether interim figures show a positive EBITDA or not, I'm trying to illustrate the point that the image of shareholders raping the workforce is incorrect.

Let's wait for the full year figures, where the appropriate amortisation of underlying costs, finances and tax are actually calculated before instead of cherry picking a period of your own choosing and then claiming EBITDA as profit.

Regarding your enfeebled and snot-nosed final comment on rhetoric, get a life.

[Chippy Minton]

I'm not not trying win any fight or move any goalposts. I haven't expressed any opinion on tt3's premise that cuts are being championed by shareholders campaigning against reduced dividends.

I simply pointed out that your statement: "BA is losing money, and if they hadn't resolved the conflict, BA would have gone bust, and they'd all be out of a job" is factually incorrect. You ask, "what do you want me to admit?" I want you to admit that!

[Huguenot]

Eh? And your proof of this is a positive interim EBITDA that the CEO attributes to restructuring that the unions were intent on blocking?

The implication is that the turnaround could not have happened without the restructuing.

With that in mind, the only question is how long investors would or could support an airline losing half a billion a year.

Your view is that this is 'indefinitely'. That is however an opinion. You have proved nothing, the data you present supports my own view. There is no admission to make.

I make that point without even referencing the glorious self-regard you must have to make pompous demands for people to 'admit' things to you. I mean, how much do you love yourself?