We have been looking for a new kettle for some months now.

After dismissing every one we see for some reason or another, we came
across the Krups FLF2 - which we think might be fine:

http://www.johnlewis.com/Electrical/...nd+Coffee/Kett
les/230196542/Product.aspx

Except we don't like black!

Further searching found:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...0004JMMQC/qid=
1123881650/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7674411-6356966?v=glance&s=kitchen&n=
507846

which appears to be the same kettle but available in white (that would be
acceptable). But, being amazon.com, this is obviously the US model FLF2-J4
- wrong voltage and a paltry 1750 watts. The wattage issues have been
discussed at considerable length here recently.

As we are off to France for a couple of days, I just thought about getting
one there. (DIY bit - I would have to change the plug!)

http://www.leguide.com/sb/leguide/re.../org/3/t/1/502
0500.htm

Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts? Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?


(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)
--
Rod

On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:



As we are off to France for a couple of days, I just thought about getting
one there. (DIY bit - I would have to change the plug!)

http://www.leguide.com/sb/leguide/re.../org/3/t/1/502
0500.htm

Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts?

If you look a bit further there are 2.5kW ones

Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances?

Circuits are 16A from what I've seen so no reason why not.

How do they handle high load
appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?

32A and 45A circuits.



(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot. Not that anybody
goes on the airlines for the catering anyway.......

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:


Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts? Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?

As far as I understand it, they are simply catering for French
electrics, which generally is lower rated than here.

If they were to sell 3kw kettles in france then a number of older
French houses would catch fire.

sponix

Andy Hall wrote:

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.


Totally agree - I've never understood the concept of going on strike - I
can't imagine ever not turning up to work in this way, and if I ever
did, I'd expect to lose my job. I've felt this way in all my previous
jobs too, where I would have had a lot less say in the matter. The whole
concept is just alien to me.


--
Grunff

On 12 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:

-snip-

(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.

Ummmm...that's precisely what happened, and what's led to all the
fooferah...

(Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in third-
party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no control over
the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)

--
Cheers,
Harvey

Harvey Van Sickle wrote in
:

On 12 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:

-snip-

(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.

Ummmm...that's precisely what happened, and what's led to all the
fooferah...

(Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in third-
party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no control over
the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)

I suppose you could say that they have landed themselves in hot water. :-)

--
Rod

On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:

Do French electrics not support 3 KW appliances?

French electrics generally struggle with 50W appliances. Also the
French have an odd way of selling electricity with the rate depending
upon the maximum (not average) consumption. This is policed by a
device known as a "disrupteur" which knocks off the supply if you
exceed a certain load. To reset it requires a visit from the
electricity board or the use of a device every corner shop sells.

How do they handle high load appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?

Generally very badly and accompanied by burning smells, smoke and
loud fizzling sounds. Decades (centuries) of bribing various
officials and inspectors has left France with an electrical system
the Albanians would be ashamed of.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Rod" wrote in message
. 4...
Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?

LOL

I worked in France for a few months and rented the top floor of a house. The
rest of the house had the owner living in and an attached dance studio (the
owner was a dance teacher). One evening I tried putting on the kettle whilst
i was ironing. The result was that the whole house went into darkness,
including the dance studio, during a dance lesson..

Beautiful house though. When we left they decided to replace the carpets,
which were foam backed and glued down. They were most amused when I said
that most people in britain put newspapers underneath specifically to stop
the carpet sticking to the floor..

Paul

(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)
--
Rod

--s-p-o-n-i-x-- wrote:
On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:



Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts? Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?


As far as I understand it, they are simply catering for French
electrics, which generally is lower rated than here.

If they were to sell 3kw kettles in france then a number of older
French houses would catch fire.

sponix

Better that than the frogs torching our sheep.

(Dons fireproof clothing)

"Mike Dodd" no-address@lo0 wrote in message
...


If they were to sell 3kw kettles in france then a number of older
French houses would catch fire.

sponix

Better that than the frogs torching our sheep.

(Dons fireproof clothing)

No need, I couldn't agree more.

Mary

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:09:47 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

On 12 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:

-snip-

(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.

Ummmm...that's precisely what happened, and what's led to all the
fooferah...

The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.


The correct procedure would have been for the airline to have
continued to fly, giving customers a voucher or part refund on tickets
and to push the cost of doing so to the catering firm for
non-performance of supply.


(Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in third-
party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no control over
the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)

Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
aspects of a business.

Airlines use rather a lot of kerosene as well, but typically don't do
oil exploration or run refineries.

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

If they were to sell 3kw kettles in france then a number of older
French houses would catch fire.

Not all bad, then

mike

On 13 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:09:47 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

(Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in
third- party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no
control over the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)

Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
aspects of a business.

Agreed, but an airline is a service industry, and the passenger
experience *is* an essential core aspect of that business. It differs
fundamentally from, say, building and fuelling the planes.

When you out-source some aspects of your core business in service
industry -- like passenger servicing, call centres, or reservations --
you clearly lose direct control over that part of your core business
and can only influence it indirectly.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:14 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

On 13 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:09:47 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

(Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in
third- party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no
control over the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)

Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
aspects of a business.

Agreed, but an airline is a service industry, and the passenger
experience *is* an essential core aspect of that business. It differs
fundamentally from, say, building and fuelling the planes.


Well..... the passenger experience thing is what the airlines traded
on for years and moderately successfully.

Then passengers decided that they wanted to buy on price and not
service (or the airlines convinced them of it).




When you out-source some aspects of your core business in service
industry -- like passenger servicing, call centres, or reservations --
you clearly lose direct control over that part of your core business
and can only influence it indirectly.

Most airlines outsource their passenger handling and catering at many
remote locations and have done for some time.

As far as reservations are concerned, most have been progressively
screwing the travel agents over the last few years and driving
passengers towards buying restricted electronic tickets on line. This
is going in the opposite direction and not always that helpful to
travellers.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

As far as reservations are concerned, most have been progressively
screwing the travel agents over the last few years and driving
passengers towards buying restricted electronic tickets on line. This
is going in the opposite direction and not always that helpful to
travellers.

Which do you do, Andy?

Mary



--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:40:52 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

As far as reservations are concerned, most have been progressively
screwing the travel agents over the last few years and driving
passengers towards buying restricted electronic tickets on line. This
is going in the opposite direction and not always that helpful to
travellers.

Which do you do, Andy?

Mary

A combination of the two.

If I am doing a simple out and back trip to somewhere that is well
served with flights like Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt then I usually
pick an airline and book it on the airline's web site. The major
groupings are reasonable for that (e.g. OneWorld, Star Alliance etc),
especially when there is code share. Frequently I don't know when I
will return, so may book a fixed outbound flight and a flexible
return. It's reasonably easy to change a booking or even check in
on line and to use E-tickets in this scenario.

However, often I am doing trips involving a sequence of 2-4 places in
a week and where it is either too restricting or even impossible to
make the complete trip with one airline or even with one alliance. It
may also be that a direct routing isn't possible or economic. In
these instances there is a high likelihood that I will need to alter a
flight timing or even a routing along the way.
In these instances, an E-ticket, even if possible, would be a
nightmare. This is because of a mix of currencies and the non
joined-up nature of the airline reservation systems between companies,
and the effect is that if an alteration is needed part way through,
the airline handling it has to convert the ticket to paper, calculate
the value, do the currency conversion and usually issue a new ticket.
In complicated cases, this can take 30 minutes or more and is hopeless
if one is tight on time.
So for these, I use a business travel agent who is first of all able
to get me good combinations and options of sectors and fares and
secondly can help with changes mid trip. They would be more
expensive than on line booking for a simple trip, but for the
complicated ones, being able to call them 24x7 if needed and get
issues fixed and changes made without hanging around is well worth it.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In message , Andy Hall
writes


(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot. Not that anybody
goes on the airlines for the catering anyway.......

Or without it

--
geoff

In message , Grunff
writes
Andy Hall wrote:

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.


Totally agree - I've never understood the concept of going on strike -
I can't imagine ever not turning up to work in this way, and if I ever
did, I'd expect to lose my job. I've felt this way in all my previous
jobs too, where I would have had a lot less say in the matter. The
whole concept is just alien to me.

What I don't understand is how a major company like BA didn't have any
form of contingency plan, or not even seemed to have considered such an
event happening


--
geoff

raden wrote:
What I don't understand is how a major company like BA didn't have any
form of contingency plan, or not even seemed to have considered such an
event happening

Indeed, it's only the drinks and nibbles supplier that's shafted them
FFS, not Air Traffic Control. I bet the local Asian corner shop could
have rustled up a planeload of pakoras, samosas, and cans of Irn Bru.

Owain

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.

They are all related, a point that passed the dimwits at BA by by a
very wide margin.

Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
aspects of a business.

Unfortunately many companies run by accountants, and BA are a classic
example, have decided customers are a non core activity.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Owain wrote:
Indeed, it's only the drinks and nibbles supplier that's shafted them
FFS, not Air Traffic Control. I bet the local Asian corner shop could
have rustled up a planeload of pakoras, samosas, and cans of Irn Bru.


Not so. The problem for BA was that the local union members went on
an unofficial strike and refused to handle baggage for BA and some other
airlines, in order to force BA etc, to pressurise the catering company
into giving in to the union demands. As Tony and friends repealed the
trade union legislation which allowed an employer to recover their
losses from a trade union whose members went on unofficial strikes, BA
were screwed. Reading between the lines, the caterer with a largely
Asian, militantly unionised and apparently inefficient workforce and
generating huge losses, decided that the company would do the best thing
for the shareholders and pull the plug. That decision, I believe was
taken in the US, as few British managers would have the guts to do it!

BA then tried to source from the local corner shop AIUI, which is one
of the reasons given for the unofficial strike. What it also shows, is
that reliance upon only one supplier is akin to suicide in a cut throat
high volume consumer business.

Regards
Capitol

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:00:25 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.

They are all related, a point that passed the dimwits at BA by by a
very wide margin.

It's a customer/supplier relationship, with BA being the customer of
the catering firm - separate companies. Therefore what possible
relevance does the employment terms and conditions of the caterer's
staff have to the employees of their customer? That's a nonsense.



Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
aspects of a business.

Unfortunately many companies run by accountants, and BA are a classic
example, have decided customers are a non core activity.

That's certainly true.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:57:00 UTC, Owain
wrote:

raden wrote:
What I don't understand is how a major company like BA didn't have any
form of contingency plan, or not even seemed to have considered such an
event happening

Indeed, it's only the drinks and nibbles supplier that's shafted them
FFS, not Air Traffic Control. I bet the local Asian corner shop could
have rustled up a planeload of pakoras, samosas, and cans of Irn Bru.

No, it's not just that. When that happened, they coped with food
vouchers and sandwiches. It was the illegal secondary action, involving
many of their OWN staff, that dropped them in it. Without check-in
staff, baggage handlers, etc. life gets more complicated.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:29:15 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:00:25 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

They are all related, a point that passed the dimwits at BA by by a
very wide margin.

It's a customer/supplier relationship, with BA being the customer of
the catering firm - separate companies.

BA used to own the catering company and off loaded it (complete with
TUPE) to another firm, that firm in turn off loaded it (at a nice
profit) to the current owners who of course had to recover the price
they had paid for it. At the same time BA were screwing the company
into the ground on price as BA accounted for well over half their UK
turnover.

Therefore what possible
relevance does the employment terms and conditions of the caterer's
staff have to the employees of their customer? That's a nonsense.

The point all the bozos with MBA's missed was that at Heathrow whole
families work there and have for years. The catering staff were
wives, cousins, sisters etc of the baggage handlers and when they
went on strike they didn't find it too difficult to persuade other
family members to join in.

BA have so little idea about, or interest in, who works for them
(apparently they are busy re-designing the design on tail fins) that
this simple relationship and the effect it might have simply didn't
occur to them.

According to the BA person I was talking to today they had calculated
that by off loading the catering (and other) services they would
reduce the probability of the follow on strikes they have seen before
and the last few days has caught them completely flat footed.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.

Firstly, the catering company didn't lay people off, they fired them.
Secondly you have to realise that the ground staff at an airport are a
bit like a village. They all know each other and are a pretty close
knit community. When a big part of your community gets fired, you get
mad.

Once upon a time, the Unions were there to make sure the *******
employers treated their workers decently. Maggie put an end to that
(and BTW an end to rather a lot of jobs at the same time) but there
are vestiges left - hence the rather impressive cessation of BA
flights.

Sometimes people have to fight back. There comes a time when some
people say "stuff that - you cannot continue to treat people like
serfs and we'll bloody well show you that you can't".

I feel sympathy for all the people who had their holidays ruined but I
daresay the sacked catering staff wish they could afford the
occasional foreign holiday and I expect the directors of BA will still
get their large bonuses and long holidays at the end of the year while
their minions continue to work for minimum wage with a smile on their
faces, glad to have a job.

In a few weeks, everyone will have forgotten about it, the catering
company will get "new" management and will be manage to sack the
workers quietly and with no fuss.



--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:13:52 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:29:15 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:00:25 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

They are all related, a point that passed the dimwits at BA by by a
very wide margin.

It's a customer/supplier relationship, with BA being the customer of
the catering firm - separate companies.

BA used to own the catering company and off loaded it (complete with
TUPE) to another firm, that firm in turn off loaded it (at a nice
profit) to the current owners who of course had to recover the price
they had paid for it. At the same time BA were screwing the company
into the ground on price as BA accounted for well over half their UK
turnover.

Then more fool the catering firm for being so reliant on one customer.
They should have actively sought other customers and/or restructured
their business a long time previously.


Therefore what possible
relevance does the employment terms and conditions of the caterer's
staff have to the employees of their customer? That's a nonsense.

The point all the bozos with MBA's missed was that at Heathrow whole
families work there and have for years. The catering staff were
wives, cousins, sisters etc of the baggage handlers and when they
went on strike they didn't find it too difficult to persuade other
family members to join in.

BA have so little idea about, or interest in, who works for them
(apparently they are busy re-designing the design on tail fins) that
this simple relationship and the effect it might have simply didn't
occur to them.

According to the BA person I was talking to today they had calculated
that by off loading the catering (and other) services they would
reduce the probability of the follow on strikes they have seen before
and the last few days has caught them completely flat footed.


Clearly there is incompetence on BA's part for not realising this
earlier and doing something about it.

However, there should be legal and financial consequences for said
baggage handlers and others not directly involved in the dispute to
withdraw their labour in regard to a dispute that is in a different
company and different operational area.

I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
remember the eventual consequences.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:33:06 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.

Firstly, the catering company didn't lay people off, they fired them.

I used the expression "laid people off" in the generic sense, be it
termination for cause, redundancy or temporary stand down.

Whatever the reason is, it is not justification for employees of other
companies or in totally unrelated areas to withdraw their labour on
the basis of said dispute.

Secondly you have to realise that the ground staff at an airport are a
bit like a village. They all know each other and are a pretty close
knit community. When a big part of your community gets fired, you get
mad.

That's fine, but this should not be without consequences for those
withdrawing their labour on this basis and liability for any union
involvement.



Once upon a time, the Unions were there to make sure the *******
employers treated their workers decently. Maggie put an end to that
(and BTW an end to rather a lot of jobs at the same time) but there
are vestiges left - hence the rather impressive cessation of BA
flights.

Hopefully those vestiges will pass, justifiably into industrial
history as soon as possible.

The consequences of inappropriate union strength and especially of
secondary action are very obvious in terms of their eventual effect on
sectors where they were typical in the 60s and 70s.



Sometimes people have to fight back. There comes a time when some
people say "stuff that - you cannot continue to treat people like
serfs and we'll bloody well show you that you can't".

Of course. However, it is not appropriate to do so if you are not
directly involved in the dispute as an employee.



I feel sympathy for all the people who had their holidays ruined but I
daresay the sacked catering staff wish they could afford the
occasional foreign holiday and I expect the directors of BA will still
get their large bonuses and long holidays at the end of the year while
their minions continue to work for minimum wage with a smile on their
faces, glad to have a job.

The catering firm has been in a situation where it hasn't made a
profit since 2000 and its revenues have fallen 35% since 2001. Faced
with the reality of that, there is no other option than to find ways
to restructure the business and to cut costs. They had tried for
several months to reach agreements with unions and employees and
change working practices in order to match the reality that they are
working in.

Part of that reality (I believe a small part) is said to be due to the
WTC bombings. I think that a much bigger part is the change in the
market dynamic of people wanting cheap and no frills air travel. THe
inevitable consequence of that is that business of the airline
catering firms is adversely affected.

I can't find anything to suggest that the company's offer was outside
the law, but was what was required to secure the future of the
company, which is not a charitable organisation. If, at the end of
the day, some of the employees don't want to accept what's on offer,
they have the option of looking for other jobs or doing as they did
and withdrawing their labour. However, they can't expect to do so
without there being consequences of termination of employment if said
activity puts them outside their employment contract.

As to the directors of BA or even the middle managers.... they work
for a different company. However, their bonuses should be hit for
not having a contingency in place in terms of an alternative catering
supplier and alternative baggage handling.




In a few weeks, everyone will have forgotten about it, the catering
company will get "new" management and will be manage to sack the
workers quietly and with no fuss.

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Geoffrey wrote:

Sometimes people have to fight back. There comes a time when some
people say "stuff that - you cannot continue to treat people like
serfs and we'll bloody well show you that you can't".


What utter crap. If you don't like your job, you quit. That simple. You
don't hold your employer to ransom until they give in to your demands.


--
Grunff

In message , Grunff
writes
Geoffrey wrote:

Sometimes people have to fight back. There comes a time when some
people say "stuff that - you cannot continue to treat people like
serfs and we'll bloody well show you that you can't".


What utter crap. If you don't like your job, you quit. That simple. You
don't hold your employer to ransom until they give in to your demands.


Its not that simple. The employer doesn't have carte blanche to do what
he want's. You do what you have to do. In this case, it may have worked.
good luck to them. Any company that sacks employees who were off on
holiday or sick on that day don't deserve any sympathy.

--
Paul Giverin

British Jet Engine Website http://www.britjet.co.uk

In article ,
Grunff wrote:
Totally agree - I've never understood the concept of going on strike - I
can't imagine ever not turning up to work in this way, and if I ever
did, I'd expect to lose my job.

And this is usually what happens. Think I've been technically sacked three
times. ;-)

I've felt this way in all my previous jobs too, where I would have had
a lot less say in the matter. The whole concept is just alien to me.

Contrary to general belief, few want to strike. After all you don't get
paid when on strike, and most work because they need the money to live on.

All strikes have a reason. And it takes two groups to create this reason -
workers and management. Unfortunately, the media rarely give the full
facts of the dispute. It's only when you become personally involved in one
that you realise this for certain.

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Not so. The problem for BA was that the local union members went on an
unofficial strike and refused to handle baggage for BA and some other
airlines, in order to force BA etc, to pressurise the catering company
into giving in to the union demands.

They shared the same union. And the union 'demands' were that they
shouldn't sack staff without reason.

As Tony and friends repealed the trade union legislation which allowed
an employer to recover their losses from a trade union whose members
went on unofficial strikes, BA were screwed.

The idea of being able to recover 'losses' from a trade union if their
members take unofficial action is just plain ludicrous, since how could
they stop it? They might have been able to in the days of closed shops,
but then those were banned too, and still are.

Airlines and others seem to be above the law when it comes time for
compensation when things go wrong, so why should trades unions be
different?

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
BA used to own the catering company and off loaded it (complete with
TUPE) to another firm, that firm in turn off loaded it (at a nice
profit) to the current owners who of course had to recover the price
they had paid for it. At the same time BA were screwing the company
into the ground on price as BA accounted for well over half their UK
turnover.

Then more fool the catering firm for being so reliant on one customer.
They should have actively sought other customers and/or restructured
their business a long time previously.

And bigger fool BA for relying on one supplier. But then they can squeeze
the prices paid rather easier that way.

--
*No radio - Already stolen.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
remember the eventual consequences.

And those miners who refused to go on strike have still got jobs?

There is little 'traditional' industry in this country as we simply can't
compete with the far east etc on cost.

--
*If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:49:26 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Rod wrote:

Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts? Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?

I'm not sure about the French, but in Italian houses there are two types
of socket, 10A and 16A, although usually most sockets are 16A with a
secondary set of connectors to take a 10A plug. TBH operating a 2.2kW
load from a 10A socket sounds to me like pushing the limits but I
suppose that it may be reason that the kettles are limited to 2.2kW.

As to cookers, as in the UK, single ovens can be fitted with a plug
(16A), larger ovens need to be wired in.

I'm sure a SMEG oven I bought had the possibility of being connected
to a 3 phase supply by a cunning re-arrangement of links. Can't quite
see how they could do that unless they just put the top oven on one
phase and the bottom one on another. The main (fan) oven only has one
element on at a time.

DG

In article ,
Grunff wrote:
Sometimes people have to fight back. There comes a time when some
people say "stuff that - you cannot continue to treat people like
serfs and we'll bloody well show you that you can't".


What utter crap. If you don't like your job, you quit. That simple. You
don't hold your employer to ransom until they give in to your demands.

Most strikes start the other way. The employer is doing the aggression, as
in this case.

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andy Hall wrote:

I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
remember the eventual consequences.

We ended up with that cnut Thatcher, losing completely a whole sector
of our indigenous energy resources, making us dependent on imported
gas and leading to an impending energy crisis the likes of which we
have never known.

The IRA were evil *******s but its a great pity they didn't finish her
off properly in Brighton 1984 doing the country and civilisation the
world over a huge favour.

But its won't be long now Maggie before everyone is dancing on your
grave you evil twisted vindictive fcuking *******. You won't be
missed at all and your "legacy" will ensure you are hated for
generations to come. You could have saved a bit of money and jumped
in that hole with Ted Heath the other week though.

--

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:38:13 +0100, Matt
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
remember the eventual consequences.

We ended up with that cnut Thatcher, losing completely a whole sector
of our indigenous energy resources, making us dependent on imported
gas and leading to an impending energy crisis the likes of which we
have never known.

The IRA were evil *******s but its a great pity they didn't finish her
off properly in Brighton 1984 doing the country and civilisation the
world over a huge favour.

But its won't be long now Maggie before everyone is dancing on your
grave you evil twisted vindictive fcuking *******. You won't be
missed at all and your "legacy" will ensure you are hated for
generations to come. You could have saved a bit of money and jumped
in that hole with Ted Heath the other week though.

Blimey! I didn't realise there was anyone left who shared my views on
Maggie. This country would be a lot better off if some precient person
had strangled her at birth.

Hey ho - there isn't any way to get the genie back in the bottle and
no way to get back the country of my childhood. Matt - you and I will
share a silent toast when the old bag finally sinks into hell.

--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:04:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
remember the eventual consequences.

And those miners who refused to go on strike have still got jobs?

There is little 'traditional' industry in this country as we simply can't
compete with the far east etc on cost.


It becomes a circular issue. People want to pay as little for things
as they can and then wonder why local industry declines.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:38:13 +0100, Matt
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
remember the eventual consequences.

We ended up with that cnut Thatcher, losing completely a whole sector
of our indigenous energy resources, making us dependent on imported
gas and leading to an impending energy crisis the likes of which we
have never known.



The industrial sectors were lost purely because people were inflexible
and priced themselves out of the market.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:33:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Grunff wrote:
Sometimes people have to fight back. There comes a time when some
people say "stuff that - you cannot continue to treat people like
serfs and we'll bloody well show you that you can't".


What utter crap. If you don't like your job, you quit. That simple. You
don't hold your employer to ransom until they give in to your demands.

Most strikes start the other way. The employer is doing the aggression, as
in this case.


Trying to restructure their business in order to stem losses in a
declining market size inevitably is going to result in a loss of hours
worked. Either that can be accomplished by changing working
practices and hours of people that are there or replacing those people
with others who are willing to accept a changed arrangement.

This doesn't amount to aggression, simply trying to deal with a
commercial reality. There aren';t really any alternatives when a
company has been losing money for five years and has lost a third of
its revenue.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl