It seems to be symptomatic of public life today that controversial measures taken by governments, institutions etc quickly get leaked, presumably by people in the organisation who are unsympathetic to them. Two streams seem to be leaking from British Airways over the vindictive changes to Staff Travel Word which impinge on pensioners specifically and so hard.
One is that Willie Walsh, the CEO, is personally directing the changes to Staff Travel, though quite why he should personally feel so antagonistic to pensioners is hard to fathom.
It is true that pensioners have not acquiesced as BA management would have wished - through ABAP they opposed the merger of the NAPS and APS - but finessing that into a personal vendetta against we wrinklies requires a leap of logic even a soap opera scriptwriter would find difficult to maintain.
The second leak is that as raison d’être for the changes (and contrary to the answer given in the Retiree FAQs), British Airways claims that Staff Travel is a cost item and penalising the some of the pensioners will go a long way to reducing those costs.
This is patently stupid and demeans the people proposing it.
Firstly, even first year accountancy students know that company finances can be shown to prove practically anything, but this proposition is so fatuous we can even accept the fanciful statement as true for a moment.
What British Airways contends is that to reduce the cost of Staff Travel the company will :-
1 extend the definition of "Travel partner" so that everyone, married or single, can change their nominee every six months;
2 reduce the qualification period for 100% firm travel from 20 years to 5 years;
3 convert a number of 100% subload entitlements to 100% firm tickets each year;
4 double the number of 100% firm tickets to which some people are entitled each year;
5 extend Staff Travel eligibility to people who are not pensioners but who served 10 years or more.
British Airways claims that none of these changes will increase the demand for staff travel. As they say in street parlance today - oh yeah.
That is the nub; British Airways seriously wants everyone to believe that by imposing arbitrary and vindictive limits on the staff Travel eligibility for some elderly former staff it will reduce the costs of Staff Travel. What tosh.
Since logic and commonsense seems to be a commodity in short supply at Waterside allow me to offer this suggestion that really will help British Airways reduce the costs of Staff Travel. Readers could probably suggest more.
Limit the number of 90% subloads any one staff member or pensioner or former staff member or interline traveller can take on BA every year. Since the company claims to have such an accurate handle on financial details, it can choose the permitted number to suit its need for cost reduction but would a reasonable person not feel that six trips a year might be enough holidays for anyone?
The result would be an immediate reduction in the costs BA claims it incurs.
It would also, incidentally, impact immediately on the apparently large number of London-based Virgin Atlantic cabin crew who live in the North of England and use the London-Manchester route as their transport to work - or does British Airways feel that current Virgin staff on subload are a cost burden that can be borne but its own pensioners are not?
What is really puzzling is, if cost reduction was its genuine intention instead of bigoted nonsense why didn’t British Airways choose to make the effect of the changes fair and equal on everybody? Why antagonise one group specifically? This is a change that won’t even affect all pensioners, just some. Why? It’s daft. Every tenet of the skill and art of negotiation argues for making changes apply equally - that way no group is formed which can provide a focus for opposition. When the general rate of income tax is increased we all feel aggrieved but after the press furore has calmed we get on with it. However, a change which favours the rich or penalises the poor immediately gathers its own vociferous agitators who have the propensity and dedication to prolong their opposition out of all comparison.
The illogicality of British Airways taking this action is so startling it seems bound to provoke possible answers to the first question that would otherwise be unthinkable.
Why is Willie Walsh so determined to penalise one specific group of pensioners?
Since comments to this blog can be made anonymously, perhaps one his fellow Board members could explain his reasons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
STAFF TRAVEL FIASCO
Having read and digested the proposed staff travel changes from April 2009, I am astounded by the journalistic 'spin' heading the article 'A SIMPLER MORE FLEXIBLE WAY TO GET AWAY'.
British Airways are using to excess the point that staff travel is a concessional and not a contractual right. That said, there is much more in the issue to be considered. If the proposals go ahead, apparently they will be assessed from the date of retirement and NOT from the date of
implementation (April 2009). This is akin to receiving a speeding
ticket -retrospectively (ie. travelling in a 50 mph limit at 40 mph and the limit is reduced to 30 mph - 3 months after your journey!!!!).
Such action is beyond any form of decent reasoning.
Many of us left B.A. under The "Business Efficiency Programme" to ASSIST THE
AIRLINE. During interviews on this option we were assured that Staff Travel would be for life. (a verbal agreement surely has to be honoured).
Also over the years at BA and during discussions with Staff Travel Policy Advisors - I understood changes could be made or improved, but nothing would
be taken away.
How could such a bizarre policy relate to our staff travel agreements with other carriers and their agreements with us?
Also 'Premium Standby'.....This
may sound good, but how will it affect FIRM Club and First onload
priorities. And to say the additional 'benefits' will be covered by a £10 payment is little more than internal political spin.
Many former staff retired with This 'lifetime promise' built into their future lifestyle i.e. emigration and family visiting etc.
I am sure many former personnel (especially Captains and and other
personnel with clout) will have current employee friends, who will
understand the situation. At the risk of a conspiracy theory - it is
possible the seeds of industrial unrest could begin to grow?
In addition to former staff, such a situation could have an effect on current personnel, according to their proposed length of service.
Either - an annual or life insurance payment (OPTIONAL) to ensure you are allocated a seat in your class entitlement would be more honest and 'customer friendly'. An insurance actuary could assess the risk factor
according to age etc and BA would not lose out!! Recalling the days of Terminal 3, Singapore Airlines accepted all firm staff. None of this 'firm to standby'. Air France still has this policy.
What happened to the 'halcyon' days of upgrading, if your entitled class was full. Also the option of paying 1% of the one way first class fare for Premier Benefits?
Whatever the thoughts of CEO Willie Walsh let us hope he is not
influenced by the newer generation of policy makers, many who are 'fast trackers' without years of grounding in the airline world.
Vapourtrail........January 2008.
STAFF TRAVEL FIASCO
Having read and digested the proposed staff travel changes from April 2009, I am astounded by the journalistic 'spin' heading the article 'A SIMPLER MORE FLEXIBLE WAY TO GET AWAY'.
British Airways are using to excess the point that staff travel is a concessional and not a contractual right. That said, there is much more in the issue to be considered. If the proposals go ahead, apparently they will
be assessed from the date of retirement and NOT from the date of
implementation (April 2009).
This is akin to receiving a speeding ticket retrospectively (i.e. travelling in a 50 mph limit at 40 mph and the limit is reduced to 30 mph - 3 months after your journey! Such action is beyond any form of decent reasoning.
Many of us left B.A. under the "Business Efficiency Programme" to ASSIST THE AIRLINE. During interviews on this option we were assured that Staff Travel would be for life - a verbal agreement surely has to be honoured?
Also over the years at BA and during discussions with Staff Travel Policy Advisors - I understood changes could be made or improved, but nothing would
be taken away.
How could such a bizarre policy relate to our staff travel agreements with other carriers and their agreements with us?
Also 'Premium Standby'. This
may sound good, but how will it affect FIRM Club and First onload
priorities?
And to say the additional 'benefits' will be covered by a £10 payment is little more than internal political spin.
Many former staff retired with this 'lifetime promise' built into their future lifestyle i.e. emigration and family visiting etc.
I am sure many former personnel (especially Captains and and other
personnel with clout) will have current employee friends, who will
understand the situation. At the risk of a conspiracy theory - is it possible the seeds of industrial unrest could begin to grow? In addition to former staff, such a situation could have an effect on current personnel, according to their length of service.
Either - an annual or life insurance payment (OPTIONAL) to ensure you are allocated a seat in your class entitlement would be more honest and 'customer friendly'. An insurance actuary could assess the risk factor
according to age etc and BA would not lose out! Recalling the days of Terminal 3, Singapore Airlines accepted all firm staff. None of this 'firm to standby'.
What happened to the 'halcyon' days of upgrading, if your entitled class was full? Also the option of paying 1% of the one way first class fare for Premier Benefits?
Whatever the thoughts of CEO Willie Walsh, let us hope he is not
influenced by the newer generation of policy makers, many who are 'fast trackers' without years of grounding in the airline world.
Vapourtrail........January 2008.
Thank you for the info which has hit me like an express train. my daughter in Australia suffers with clinical depression and I use my staff travel once a year in order to spend time with her giving her the support she badly needs ie my visits to her are a life-line. I am probably not the only person to whom staff travel is vital.
When I opted for early retirement under the "Business Efficiency Programme" I was also told my staff travel would be for life. I have always felt proud that I spent 21 years with BOAC/BA only now to feel betrayed.
Most of the overseas retirees started with BEA/BOAC and I felt betrayed by the recent new BA STAFF TRAVEL SCHEME after given 40 years of loyal service to BOAC/BA. Our POS Overseas here is so useless that nobody has a copy of our retirees' address list or let alone our NAMES! I can't even change my address, as we do not report to LHR HQ. Loyalty seems to mean nothing these days except costs to BA Management!
Guess who made our airline one of the best and most respected companies worldwide. We persevered through the oil shock, Gulf crisis. We cut costs and improved business efficiency with no pay increase for many years.
Now we are hit in the head by this ridiculous new scheme as a retirement present! Common on BA Top, you can do much better! At least that's what we have been told for the last 20 years!!!
Most of the overseas retirees started with BEA/BOAC and I felt betrayed by the recent new BA STAFF TRAVEL SCHEME after given 40 years of loyal service to BOAC/BA. Our POS Overseas here is so useless that nobody has a copy of our retirees' address list or let alone our NAMES! I can't even change my address, as we do not report to LHR HQ. Loyalty seems to mean nothing these days except costs to BA Management!
Guess who made our airline one of the best and most respected companies worldwide. We persevered through the oil shock, Gulf crisis. We cut costs and improved business efficiency with no pay increase for many years.
Now we are hit in the head by this ridiculous new scheme as a retirement present! Common on BA Top, you can do much better! At least that's what we have been told for the last 20 years!!!
i recently wanted to draw my pension and start using my staff travel which i was told id for life but have just received a letter from staff travel that i can only use staff travel for 11 years ( no of years of service ) when i left!!!!! so gutted!!!!
does anyone know when BA will start contacting former staff advising them of the process for using their concession under the new arrangements from April 2009?
Have people been receiving instructions from BA yet?
Based on BA's announcements to date, retired staff will discover that they no longer have Staff Travel on the same basis as before when they first apply for a ticket after 1st April 2009.
First to notice will be holders of Long Service Awards who failed to use them before that date and who will then have lost them for ever.
Widows and widowers will also discover that they can, from that date, only travel 90% subload on BA flights and that they have no interline travel rights whatsoever.
If this information is inaccurate it is because BA has confined all announcements about ST09 to the document itself (which is still hidden away under an obscure filename on the Retired Staff Travel FAQ) and to two partial announcements in Touchdown. A few pensioners' letters have been answered but most, including one from me to Hilary Brayfield, have so far been ignored.
Judging by its actions, BA appears to be of the opinion that not only can staff travel be withdrawn it can also be withdrawn without notice or notification.
Ironically, had it wished to communicate with all pensioners rather than sneak the change through, a letter could have been enclosed in the annual notice advising each pensioner of the new rate of pension they will receive following that year's review.
Amongst other things, politeness, transparency and courtesy are victims in the new British Airways.
I am flabbergasted at the way BA have taken a decision which affects the vunerable in the BA "family". I was medically retired due to an unforseen disability which has now placed me in a wheelchair, I am only 33 years old. I feel that BA has let me and countless of others down.
I have consulted with a lecturer who is also a tribunal judge in employment law. Yes an expert in employment law...I have just completed by law degree and now doing a PhD so I have access to the best people in the know and at present the wording used such as entitlment is questionable and the defintion of employee can include that of an existing employee and s former employee. I will let you know haw far we get in preparing a legal challenge that will back BA into a corner. I am also looking into the various trade unions as they are obliged to notify everyone of any proposals which would cause significant changes. I was not notified by BASSA therefore procedures have not been correctly followed and restitution may be acheivable. I found out via Touchdown which is unacceptable. I hope we can all work together to acheive an equitable outcome.
As for managers who have stated that the changes are generous are speaking B******s and as for the manager that stated current employees have contributed to BA success, well to him, without the people who started from the beginning and the people who continued to the growth of BA he would not be in a job.How about a bit of loyalty our way and god forbid anyone in BA become disabled early and not do any of the alternative jobs because they are deemed unsuitable by a BA Doctor and Management, see how you like forced retirement early and then find out you will be losing your "entitlement" to staff travel which is overseen and signed by a solicitor. This is a discriminative decision in more ways than one, ageist,disability inter alia.
As for financial reasons, you need new accountants as staff travel does not cost BA anything as we still pay same taxes and we only fill vacant seats when or if they become avaiable.
I hope we all all in a fighting mood because I am and it will not cost me anything to fight this case in court as I have the qualifications now to do so.
Milena
Thank you, not only for your message but also the positive and determined tone which I feel sure
will remind many of us that whatever our situation at any given time, there are others right alongside us who are considerably worse off than we are ourselves.
I had the privilege and pleasure to be asked to speak at the ABAP AGM yesterday and although my report cannot be published yet for a number of reasons, I regret that there are people, notable in their own circles, who are unfeeling about the plight of pensioners, care only for their perceived
relationships with British Airways, who are indifferent to our attempts and openly damning of our campaign.
I know I speak for everyone around the world who has supported the campaign, many from the outset last December, when I say that whatever we can do to help you and anyone else who is able to make a personal contribution like that which you propose, we shall be pleased to offer it. Amongst the thousands of supporters we have reams of severance and retirement documentation, scores of communications with BA directors (mostly ignored and unanswered), BA staff (much to those directly concerned ignored and unanswered) but even the questions might help you frame your legal questions.
Finally if it comes to court and you require any physical presence to support your case please ask.
Post a Comment