On the day following the Liaison Council’s request for my correction (below) I wondered if the gods were conspiring against me for the Manchester Evening News carried two interesting stories.
The first was that British Airways is dropping the Manchester-New York route to save money - presumably to help towards the £16 million they lost at Terminal Five’s first week. Delta evidently makes enough on the route and Continental seems to get by with its Manchester-Newark service. American flies daily to Boston and Chicago, BMI/United serves Chicago too but BA can’t manage a simple Manchester-New York. The MEN editorial echoed my proposition that British Airways should be charged with misrepresentation. The airline can simply not claim the title any longer since it serves only London.
The second story was more telling.
Last year British Airways dropped its entire Regional service, claiming it wasn’t profitable. As a former leader of the marketing team in UK North based in Manchester I could tell them why. Without going the sorry tale of mistakes and missed opportunities it simply shows that if you don’t promote and support your product it will wither and disappear beneath your competitors’ promotions.
BA’s solution last year was to come to an "arrangement" with FlyBe who took over the routes, staff and possibly the planes (I don't recall the details), and instantly became the largest operator at Manchester. The only mention of money was that BA had made a small investment in FlyBe.
Yesterday was evidently considered by British Airways as a good day to bury bad news.
In fact British Airways paid FlyBe £140 million, that’s right, almost ten weeks worth of Terminal fiasco, £140 million to take the routes, staff etc off their hands.
And what did FlyBe do? Did they regenerate the original network of mainly business routes? Not likely. They cherry-picked the remainder of the network, announced a few new services to northern France and trousered the cash. And what of routes like Manchester-Nice or Manchester-Paris - too much trouble fighting EasyJet and Air France; or Manchester-Lyon which, whilst I was busy helping to launch the Manchester New York service in the early 70's, my colleagues in BEA had spent years developing. Abandoned, although Air France almost at once inaugurated a Birmingham-Lyon service - doing well I’m told.
But management incompetence is not news at British Airways. The real question is why did British Airways not tell the truth last year? Were they so ashamed at their actions that they hadn’t got the guts to say so?
Finally, there are still some on the ABAP committee who ask if I’ve some sort of grudge against BA and others who suggest that I should show some respect to Walsh and his cohorts (quite apart from the un-elected Liaison Council). OK, I’ll admit to a grudge - a grudge against dishonest, vindictive and irrational management - but otherwise, don’t be silly. As for respect, that is earned not demanded and I've not seen anything in the actions of British Airways management that qualifies for much except contempt - and certainly not respect.
But perhaps to confirm that I am not a lone voice but echo a consensus of opinion, readers might care to look at the blog of someone who earns his living in leadership coaching. What a huge potential market he has at BA.
http://theleadershipspace.blogspot.com/2008/04/british-scareways.html
(If this address is not complete on one line, please copy and paste the two parts and enter them in your browser manually.)
Saturday 19 April 2008
The Liaison Council - a correction
A principal culprit in the Staff Travel fiasco has been the supine Liaison Council which, among other things, I have accused of dancing to British Airways tune, of being British Airways acolytes and of being irrelevant as representatives of the pensioners because they are appointed by British Airways and not elected by the pensioner universe.
I have also offered to correct with an apology any inaccurate information I have published. No apology has been requested from me but the Liaison Council representatives (who despite claiming to represent all pensioners nevertheless refuse to communicate with those they don’t like) have chosen to meet with the ABAP committee to protest that they are not appointed by British Airways so I’m going to pretend they’ve accepted my offer of correction.
Reader, make up your own mind.
This is how the Liaison Council works. Firstly it advertises vacancies in Touchdown. For some arcane reason vacancies are dedicated to specific geographical regions of the UK and Northern Ireland, but for our purpose that is of no consequence. Pensioners living in the designated area are invited to propose themselves for membership of the Liaison Council.
Then they are interviewed to determine their suitability by the present Council members. If they are deemed suitable they become members of the Liaison Council.
However, if it isn’t enough that they are vetted by a coterie of existing, like-minded Council members, they are also interviewed by a serving member of British Airways management. The role of this person hasn’t been explained but if it is not to ensure that the candidate is a compliant pensioner willing to support British Airways’ contentious pleas for a third runway etc and not a rabid critic of British Airways or, Heaven forfend, a member of ABAP, then you may call me Philip van Howells of Amsterdam.
Thus the Liaison Committee claims that selection by closed door interview by the existing Star Chamber, overseen by a British Airways gauleiter, means they are not appointed by British Airways and that it is unfair for me and others to refer to them as British Airways’ poodles.
(I pause there whilst I am distracted by several pigs passing overhead.)
Call me old fashioned, but the ABAP system in which candidates from anywhere in the UK and Northern Ireland offer themselves for election to the Committee, and all paid-up members of ABAP vote secretly to determine which of the candidates has the most support seems to be to have a ring of fairness and transparency lacking in the Liaison Council’s procedures.
Nevertheless, I accept that we don’t all share the same views nor the same values, so if I’ve offended anyone on the Liaison Council by suggesting that the Council, appointed in the way I’ve described, is in thrall to British Airways then they have my fulsome and wholehearted apology – but that doesn’t mean I believe you. Whatever fantasy you want to believe Councillors, you are un-elected.
I have also offered to correct with an apology any inaccurate information I have published. No apology has been requested from me but the Liaison Council representatives (who despite claiming to represent all pensioners nevertheless refuse to communicate with those they don’t like) have chosen to meet with the ABAP committee to protest that they are not appointed by British Airways so I’m going to pretend they’ve accepted my offer of correction.
Reader, make up your own mind.
This is how the Liaison Council works. Firstly it advertises vacancies in Touchdown. For some arcane reason vacancies are dedicated to specific geographical regions of the UK and Northern Ireland, but for our purpose that is of no consequence. Pensioners living in the designated area are invited to propose themselves for membership of the Liaison Council.
Then they are interviewed to determine their suitability by the present Council members. If they are deemed suitable they become members of the Liaison Council.
However, if it isn’t enough that they are vetted by a coterie of existing, like-minded Council members, they are also interviewed by a serving member of British Airways management. The role of this person hasn’t been explained but if it is not to ensure that the candidate is a compliant pensioner willing to support British Airways’ contentious pleas for a third runway etc and not a rabid critic of British Airways or, Heaven forfend, a member of ABAP, then you may call me Philip van Howells of Amsterdam.
Thus the Liaison Committee claims that selection by closed door interview by the existing Star Chamber, overseen by a British Airways gauleiter, means they are not appointed by British Airways and that it is unfair for me and others to refer to them as British Airways’ poodles.
(I pause there whilst I am distracted by several pigs passing overhead.)
Call me old fashioned, but the ABAP system in which candidates from anywhere in the UK and Northern Ireland offer themselves for election to the Committee, and all paid-up members of ABAP vote secretly to determine which of the candidates has the most support seems to be to have a ring of fairness and transparency lacking in the Liaison Council’s procedures.
Nevertheless, I accept that we don’t all share the same views nor the same values, so if I’ve offended anyone on the Liaison Council by suggesting that the Council, appointed in the way I’ve described, is in thrall to British Airways then they have my fulsome and wholehearted apology – but that doesn’t mean I believe you. Whatever fantasy you want to believe Councillors, you are un-elected.
Monday 14 April 2008
Heads raised above the parapet
Many people have been anxious to know what is happening with the Staff Travel Fighting Fund and our campaign to right the injustices of Staff Travel 2009. To those who wrote and those who haven’t written but who nevertheless wondered why there’d been no news, thank you for your patience.
The campaign is in good health but so that there could be no suggestion later that we’d not exhausted every avenue before setting the campaign in motion we felt it right to wait with reasonable patience whilst Mr Walsh, British Airways and its willing acolytes in the Liaison Council played their game of either not replying to correspondence or postponing responses until a later date.
Of course British Airways would be happy to delay any action until next year when they can announce that the new arrangements are a fait accompli but ABAP has decided that enough is enough.
Accordingly the core Working Group has been formed from amongst the many volunteers who offered to help. It is only a core for the campaign we envisage will expand and involve at least all those who offered to help, maybe even more, so I trust no-one will feel aggrieved that their services have been overlooked.
In addition to the writer, Philip Howells, and Dayne Markham who has been heading the campaign on the ABAP committee, these are the new members of the Working Group:
Alan Murgatroyd, formerly a Captain with BOAC and BA, and then with Singapore Airlines, now retired and living in North Island, New Zealand.
Conor Walsh, now represents BA Canada pensioners on the BA Canada Pensions Fund committee.
The structure of the Working Group broadly reflects the composition of those affected by the Staff Travel 2009 proposals with a balance between those who are UK based and those living abroad. This should bring home to Mr Walsh and his colleagues that he is not merely dealing with a UK-based problem but one which has publicity ramifications worldwide.
We do not envisage any need for the Working Group to travel - all communication and meetings will be carried out via the Internet and Conference calls using Skype Internet Telephony which is free to download and use.
Whilst publishing names it should be remembered that our campign is not about personalities, despite the concentration on the CEO - made inevitable unfortunately by his close personal involvement in the problem. As I write there are calls from BALPA for the resignation of the whole senior management and some large insurers are refusing to insure passengers and their luggage using Terminal 5 all of which add to the pressure on Mr Walsh to accept his role in the last two year's fiascos and resign. That would not solve our problem. Unless Walsh was to be replaced by a CEO who promised to reverse the inequities of the Staff Travel situation our campaign will continue.
In an ideal world we would publish every detail of the campaign openly here but as you will appreciate, this is a publicly available site and we should not be serving our supporter’s interests if we revealed our strategy and tactics to British Airways, especially when one of the first considerations is to determine the strength and basis of any legal challenge.
However, we are mindful of our broad condemnation of the Liaison Council’s willingness to discuss Staff Travel with British Airways under a non-disclosure agreement and assure you that any lack of absolute candour in the publications of the Working Group will only be to protect your interests. Furthermore, when the matter is finally resolved, not only will there be a full financial accounting to demonstrate how the campaign funds have been used and thus how much remains to refund to contributors, but all the negotiations will be published in full also.
For now may I send the thanks of all involved in and outside ABAP to everyone who has contributed to the Fighting Fund. It will remain open until the campaign is resolved.
The campaign is in good health but so that there could be no suggestion later that we’d not exhausted every avenue before setting the campaign in motion we felt it right to wait with reasonable patience whilst Mr Walsh, British Airways and its willing acolytes in the Liaison Council played their game of either not replying to correspondence or postponing responses until a later date.
Of course British Airways would be happy to delay any action until next year when they can announce that the new arrangements are a fait accompli but ABAP has decided that enough is enough.
Accordingly the core Working Group has been formed from amongst the many volunteers who offered to help. It is only a core for the campaign we envisage will expand and involve at least all those who offered to help, maybe even more, so I trust no-one will feel aggrieved that their services have been overlooked.
In addition to the writer, Philip Howells, and Dayne Markham who has been heading the campaign on the ABAP committee, these are the new members of the Working Group:
Alan Murgatroyd, formerly a Captain with BOAC and BA, and then with Singapore Airlines, now retired and living in North Island, New Zealand.
Conor Walsh, now represents BA Canada pensioners on the BA Canada Pensions Fund committee.
The structure of the Working Group broadly reflects the composition of those affected by the Staff Travel 2009 proposals with a balance between those who are UK based and those living abroad. This should bring home to Mr Walsh and his colleagues that he is not merely dealing with a UK-based problem but one which has publicity ramifications worldwide.
We do not envisage any need for the Working Group to travel - all communication and meetings will be carried out via the Internet and Conference calls using Skype Internet Telephony which is free to download and use.
Whilst publishing names it should be remembered that our campign is not about personalities, despite the concentration on the CEO - made inevitable unfortunately by his close personal involvement in the problem. As I write there are calls from BALPA for the resignation of the whole senior management and some large insurers are refusing to insure passengers and their luggage using Terminal 5 all of which add to the pressure on Mr Walsh to accept his role in the last two year's fiascos and resign. That would not solve our problem. Unless Walsh was to be replaced by a CEO who promised to reverse the inequities of the Staff Travel situation our campaign will continue.
In an ideal world we would publish every detail of the campaign openly here but as you will appreciate, this is a publicly available site and we should not be serving our supporter’s interests if we revealed our strategy and tactics to British Airways, especially when one of the first considerations is to determine the strength and basis of any legal challenge.
However, we are mindful of our broad condemnation of the Liaison Council’s willingness to discuss Staff Travel with British Airways under a non-disclosure agreement and assure you that any lack of absolute candour in the publications of the Working Group will only be to protect your interests. Furthermore, when the matter is finally resolved, not only will there be a full financial accounting to demonstrate how the campaign funds have been used and thus how much remains to refund to contributors, but all the negotiations will be published in full also.
For now may I send the thanks of all involved in and outside ABAP to everyone who has contributed to the Fighting Fund. It will remain open until the campaign is resolved.
Saturday 5 April 2008
Liaison Council still dancing to BA's tune
I find I have a unique perspective on two contrasting faces of British Airways.
On the one hand I am told by the ABAP treasurer that contributions to the Staff Travel Fighting Fund have been flowing into ABAP from BA pensioners around the world.
On the other, Sigrid Mapp, the Chairperson of the Liaison Council first refuses to communicate with either of the two people authorised by ABAP to speak and act on its behalf and later, when she is forced to say something, replies that she can’t possibly tell us anything about a reply to the letter she claims to have written to Mr Walsh in January until the next Liaison Council meeting in April.
ABAP has exercised extreme patience and accepted the procrastination of the Liaison Council since it claims to share our interests. But enough is enough and the time has come to face the fact that Mrs Mapp and her Liaison Council continue to dance to her master’s voice for continued delay is of benefit only to British Airways.
In what was likely to be futile desperation I wrote to Mrs Mapp, first dealing with her refusal to communicate with us:
A reasonable person might find it strange that someone who claims to represent pensioners only wants to correspond with those she chooses. Do you not think your actions might be seen by the pensioner universe as somewhat arrogant?
The facts of the matter seem to be these.
On 15 Feb you told us (ABAP) that you'd written to Mr Walsh in January on behalf of pensioners regarding the Staff Travel 2009 proposals and that he'd not yet replied.
On 3 Mar you wrote that you would reply on 13 Mar.
On 13 Mar you wrote and although it wasn't clear, it appeared that you might have had a response from Mr Walsh but you gave no details.
On the same date (and authorised by ABAP) I wrote and enquired if you had in fact received a response and if so what it was - as you'd promised to tell us back in February.
Now you decline to tell us until the next Liaison Council meeting.
Your excuse is that it's because you don't like the tone of the ABAP website. Frankly that is hardly your affair - or is it that your masters in British Airways don't like the tone of the website? Well, frankly it's none of their business either. What has been written there is the truth. If that is not the case and there are errors of fact, I have offered correction and apology but none has been requested. What we have done is to examine British Airways' excuses (like Clare Hatchwell's fatuous claim that the new arrangements were to save money) and to demolish them strand by strand. Other claims have been made by British Airways which, when we decide to publish, we will also refute item by item.
The fact is that British Airways has behaved despicably and unfairly, without any honourable or even sensible motivation or justification.
In your previous message to me you revealed in a sentence that may well come back to haunt you that "British Airways management knew how many pensioners would be affected by these changes and also the unhappiness it would cause".
Is that the height of British Airway’s management achievement - to define and penalise a specific group of people who they judge cannot respond, merely to show how big they are? That is the mindset of the playground bully. Is that how British Airways management wants to be regarded?
It seems incredible to conceive but it is clear that at a time when the airline is facing some of the biggest challenges of its existence, the CEO and other senior managers in British Airways have time to devise little vindictive plans to hurt a few thousand pensioners - for what? Creating - or
for that matter, resolving - this dispute isn't going to affect the bottom line.
It isn't going to make it easier to compete with European airlines flying UK - to the USA.
It isn't going to solve the missing baggage catastrophe. (Note this was written before the T5 fiasco.)
And meanwhile what is really happening? It is a picture of financial lunacy in which:
- Air France walks away with a share of the London - Los Angeles market,
- the BA European regional network is run down and eventually given away to FlyBe,
- Middle Eastern carriers like Emirates etc fly from Manchester, Birmingham and
Newcastle to Dubai several times every day,
- second level carriers like Zoom fly full aircraft from Cardiff, Manchester
and Glasgow to Toronto,
whilst the management of the premier British Airline labours over a scheme that will spoil the retirement of a few thousand former employees. If it wasn't true it would be called far-fetched.
The time has surely come Mrs Mapp to leave the asylum to the inmates - and if you do one honourable thing, join us.
On the other hand if you refuse to deal with pensioners (as the chairperson of ABAP has requested) then I seriously suggest you should consider whether you have any moral right to maintain your position as chairman of the Liaison Committee."
A second call for contributions has been made and pensioners who have already responded so generously might wonder why this was necessary. In fact it was this writer’s fault, in confusing explanation of the basis on which contributions would be handled. That confusion generated a large number of messages from pensioners intending to contribute but thinking that they should wait until later.
To maximise the value of contributions (and because contributors can verify their clearance reference their bank statement) they are not being acknowledged individually.
The next moves in our campaign are under way. A few of the many offers to help on the Working Group will shortly be taken up to form a small but representative group. Its first action will be to explore with a leading QC the various legal challenges that will be made against BA’s action in Staff Travel 2009. It will also lay the foundations of the next stage of the action which will involve everybody sympathetic to the inequity of the BA decision. Watch this blog and the ABAP website for news of how you can become involved.
Finally I think it relevant to comment on a view that has been expressed on a number of occasions regarding the level of sympathy we might expect from the general public who regard Staff Travel as a privileged, gold-plated perk? Of course air travel is a desirable benefit but the public should understand that most of it is only subload and also that we still pay the full taxes. Not only that but we also save BA money because if we weren’t occupying those subload seats BA would be paying the taxes due itself. Think about that next time you’re at the checkout behind a Tesco employee and in exchange for her Staff ID Card she gets a cash discount on the groceries she’s bought.
On the one hand I am told by the ABAP treasurer that contributions to the Staff Travel Fighting Fund have been flowing into ABAP from BA pensioners around the world.
On the other, Sigrid Mapp, the Chairperson of the Liaison Council first refuses to communicate with either of the two people authorised by ABAP to speak and act on its behalf and later, when she is forced to say something, replies that she can’t possibly tell us anything about a reply to the letter she claims to have written to Mr Walsh in January until the next Liaison Council meeting in April.
ABAP has exercised extreme patience and accepted the procrastination of the Liaison Council since it claims to share our interests. But enough is enough and the time has come to face the fact that Mrs Mapp and her Liaison Council continue to dance to her master’s voice for continued delay is of benefit only to British Airways.
In what was likely to be futile desperation I wrote to Mrs Mapp, first dealing with her refusal to communicate with us:
A reasonable person might find it strange that someone who claims to represent pensioners only wants to correspond with those she chooses. Do you not think your actions might be seen by the pensioner universe as somewhat arrogant?
The facts of the matter seem to be these.
On 15 Feb you told us (ABAP) that you'd written to Mr Walsh in January on behalf of pensioners regarding the Staff Travel 2009 proposals and that he'd not yet replied.
On 3 Mar you wrote that you would reply on 13 Mar.
On 13 Mar you wrote and although it wasn't clear, it appeared that you might have had a response from Mr Walsh but you gave no details.
On the same date (and authorised by ABAP) I wrote and enquired if you had in fact received a response and if so what it was - as you'd promised to tell us back in February.
Now you decline to tell us until the next Liaison Council meeting.
Your excuse is that it's because you don't like the tone of the ABAP website. Frankly that is hardly your affair - or is it that your masters in British Airways don't like the tone of the website? Well, frankly it's none of their business either. What has been written there is the truth. If that is not the case and there are errors of fact, I have offered correction and apology but none has been requested. What we have done is to examine British Airways' excuses (like Clare Hatchwell's fatuous claim that the new arrangements were to save money) and to demolish them strand by strand. Other claims have been made by British Airways which, when we decide to publish, we will also refute item by item.
The fact is that British Airways has behaved despicably and unfairly, without any honourable or even sensible motivation or justification.
In your previous message to me you revealed in a sentence that may well come back to haunt you that "British Airways management knew how many pensioners would be affected by these changes and also the unhappiness it would cause".
Is that the height of British Airway’s management achievement - to define and penalise a specific group of people who they judge cannot respond, merely to show how big they are? That is the mindset of the playground bully. Is that how British Airways management wants to be regarded?
It seems incredible to conceive but it is clear that at a time when the airline is facing some of the biggest challenges of its existence, the CEO and other senior managers in British Airways have time to devise little vindictive plans to hurt a few thousand pensioners - for what? Creating - or
for that matter, resolving - this dispute isn't going to affect the bottom line.
It isn't going to make it easier to compete with European airlines flying UK - to the USA.
It isn't going to solve the missing baggage catastrophe. (Note this was written before the T5 fiasco.)
And meanwhile what is really happening? It is a picture of financial lunacy in which:
- Air France walks away with a share of the London - Los Angeles market,
- the BA European regional network is run down and eventually given away to FlyBe,
- Middle Eastern carriers like Emirates etc fly from Manchester, Birmingham and
Newcastle to Dubai several times every day,
- second level carriers like Zoom fly full aircraft from Cardiff, Manchester
and Glasgow to Toronto,
whilst the management of the premier British Airline labours over a scheme that will spoil the retirement of a few thousand former employees. If it wasn't true it would be called far-fetched.
The time has surely come Mrs Mapp to leave the asylum to the inmates - and if you do one honourable thing, join us.
On the other hand if you refuse to deal with pensioners (as the chairperson of ABAP has requested) then I seriously suggest you should consider whether you have any moral right to maintain your position as chairman of the Liaison Committee."
A second call for contributions has been made and pensioners who have already responded so generously might wonder why this was necessary. In fact it was this writer’s fault, in confusing explanation of the basis on which contributions would be handled. That confusion generated a large number of messages from pensioners intending to contribute but thinking that they should wait until later.
To maximise the value of contributions (and because contributors can verify their clearance reference their bank statement) they are not being acknowledged individually.
The next moves in our campaign are under way. A few of the many offers to help on the Working Group will shortly be taken up to form a small but representative group. Its first action will be to explore with a leading QC the various legal challenges that will be made against BA’s action in Staff Travel 2009. It will also lay the foundations of the next stage of the action which will involve everybody sympathetic to the inequity of the BA decision. Watch this blog and the ABAP website for news of how you can become involved.
Finally I think it relevant to comment on a view that has been expressed on a number of occasions regarding the level of sympathy we might expect from the general public who regard Staff Travel as a privileged, gold-plated perk? Of course air travel is a desirable benefit but the public should understand that most of it is only subload and also that we still pay the full taxes. Not only that but we also save BA money because if we weren’t occupying those subload seats BA would be paying the taxes due itself. Think about that next time you’re at the checkout behind a Tesco employee and in exchange for her Staff ID Card she gets a cash discount on the groceries she’s bought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)