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.)
Showing posts with label pensioners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pensioners. Show all posts
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.
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.
Monday, 3 March 2008
ABAP acts
ABAP Staff Travel Fighting Fund
This posting is appearing here and on the news page of the ABAP website at http://www.abap.org.uk/
Readers of the blog will know that at present the Liaison Council (which BA appoints and regards as the organisation through which it would like to deal with pensioners) has written to the CEO, Mr Walsh, expressing (it says) our dissatisfaction with Staff Travel 2009. Their letter, written in January (and which we have not seen since the LC deals secretly with BA), has not received a reply - which will come as no surprise to anyone who’s written personally to Mr Walsh.
ABAP has therefore decided to move the matter forward to the next stage independently and has established a Staff Travel Fighting Fund to place the campaign on a proper financial basis. As explained in the blog, although initially this may initially appear to be a rather mean-minded approach it should be remembered that many of those pensioners affected by Staff Travel 2009 are not ABAP members (since they don’t receive UK pensions), and conversely many ABAP members are not adversely affected by Staff Travel 2009. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to use existing ABAP funds for the Staff Travel 2009 campaign.
Even more importantly it means that all money raised for the Staff Travel Fighting Fund is to be ring-fenced. This means that not only will those funds only be used for the specific campaign but, since that campaign has defined and time-sensitive objectives, any excess raised will be refunded fairly to the donors at the end of the campaign. The intention is that the same amount of money will be contributed by each person, up to the full amount of the individual donation. Any part of each donation that remains will be refunded to the contributor. It will not be merged into general ABAP funds.
Furthermore, the campaign’s initial aims and objectives are also strictly defined and thus donors will know that their funds will not be used for activities of which they are unaware.
We hear repeatedly that British Airways doubts that more than a couple of hundred pensioners and staff actually care about Staff Travel 2009. The ABAP Staff Travel Fighting Fund will show to everyone, including British Airways, how widespread is the concern, not merely at the unfairness of the specific proposals but the cavalier way in which they have been imposed. Staff and pensioners, unaffected by Staff Travel 2009, are worried that if BA can enforce this change without censure or protest, what other changes could they make with no reaction from pensioners or staff.
This is therefore a request for money, sufficient money to enable ABAP to examine the precise legal bases on which Staff Travel 2009 can be challenged and to report back to everyone concerned what those options are, the strength of the argument and the likely cost of initiating proceedings, initially in the British Courts and eventually to the appropriate European Court.
Obviously we don’t wish to publish chapter and verse which would merely give British Airways the benefit of our research. However the legal bases include custom and practice, general precedents in UK law, specific precedents in European law and age discrimination in both jurisdictions.
However legal action is not the only route and if the advice and opinion is that the legal challenges are not sufficiently sound or might cost more than we can reasonably raise, the matter will not come to end.
Again for now we don’t propose to publish or discuss openly the course of action which we might take but it would be action on a scale that money raised by this call for funds could be used for.
Please therefore give as generously as you can - not on the basis of an annual subscription for I don’t believe this will be a matter that lasts like pensions, but rather as a one-off donation demonstrating in money terms your feeling about the company’s actions. Please include your email address where possible.
As ABAP members know, ABAP accounts in sterling. If funds are received in foreign currencies they will be converted to sterling at the best rates available on the day. Any pro rata refunds will be expressed and made in sterling also so whilst we don’t wish to discourage financial support from those whose lives are fully engaged in a foreign financial environment, we do want you to be aware of the small costs involved in handling such subscriptions.
In the next few weeks ABAP will publish its proposals for handling the Staff Travel 2009 in terms of manpower. At that time it is likely that calls will be made for volunteers to form a working group (or any term avoiding the words "sub-committee" since this matter is unconnected with pensions, ABAP’s original concern) to decide on the precise action to be taken. This group will form the body which will ultimately decide on the expenditure of the Staff Travel Fighting Fund. As previously expressed, although it would be desirable for at least one representative from the ABAP committee to be on the working group, the group should also reflect the universe of concerned and affected pensioners internationally. Geographical location is not an impediment to active membership although time zones might mean a few early morning or late night conference calls for some!
Please make all contributions to the Staff Travel 2009 Fighting Fund payable to:
ABAP
and send them to:
ABAP Staff Travel Fighting Fund
Unit 10
Solent Industrial Estate
Hedge End
Southampton
SO30 2FX
Money received like this will be transferred to a special high interest account and only used for the Staff Travel 2009 campaign.
Many thanks for your support.
This posting is appearing here and on the news page of the ABAP website at http://www.abap.org.uk/
Readers of the blog will know that at present the Liaison Council (which BA appoints and regards as the organisation through which it would like to deal with pensioners) has written to the CEO, Mr Walsh, expressing (it says) our dissatisfaction with Staff Travel 2009. Their letter, written in January (and which we have not seen since the LC deals secretly with BA), has not received a reply - which will come as no surprise to anyone who’s written personally to Mr Walsh.
ABAP has therefore decided to move the matter forward to the next stage independently and has established a Staff Travel Fighting Fund to place the campaign on a proper financial basis. As explained in the blog, although initially this may initially appear to be a rather mean-minded approach it should be remembered that many of those pensioners affected by Staff Travel 2009 are not ABAP members (since they don’t receive UK pensions), and conversely many ABAP members are not adversely affected by Staff Travel 2009. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to use existing ABAP funds for the Staff Travel 2009 campaign.
Even more importantly it means that all money raised for the Staff Travel Fighting Fund is to be ring-fenced. This means that not only will those funds only be used for the specific campaign but, since that campaign has defined and time-sensitive objectives, any excess raised will be refunded fairly to the donors at the end of the campaign. The intention is that the same amount of money will be contributed by each person, up to the full amount of the individual donation. Any part of each donation that remains will be refunded to the contributor. It will not be merged into general ABAP funds.
Furthermore, the campaign’s initial aims and objectives are also strictly defined and thus donors will know that their funds will not be used for activities of which they are unaware.
We hear repeatedly that British Airways doubts that more than a couple of hundred pensioners and staff actually care about Staff Travel 2009. The ABAP Staff Travel Fighting Fund will show to everyone, including British Airways, how widespread is the concern, not merely at the unfairness of the specific proposals but the cavalier way in which they have been imposed. Staff and pensioners, unaffected by Staff Travel 2009, are worried that if BA can enforce this change without censure or protest, what other changes could they make with no reaction from pensioners or staff.
This is therefore a request for money, sufficient money to enable ABAP to examine the precise legal bases on which Staff Travel 2009 can be challenged and to report back to everyone concerned what those options are, the strength of the argument and the likely cost of initiating proceedings, initially in the British Courts and eventually to the appropriate European Court.
Obviously we don’t wish to publish chapter and verse which would merely give British Airways the benefit of our research. However the legal bases include custom and practice, general precedents in UK law, specific precedents in European law and age discrimination in both jurisdictions.
However legal action is not the only route and if the advice and opinion is that the legal challenges are not sufficiently sound or might cost more than we can reasonably raise, the matter will not come to end.
Again for now we don’t propose to publish or discuss openly the course of action which we might take but it would be action on a scale that money raised by this call for funds could be used for.
Please therefore give as generously as you can - not on the basis of an annual subscription for I don’t believe this will be a matter that lasts like pensions, but rather as a one-off donation demonstrating in money terms your feeling about the company’s actions. Please include your email address where possible.
As ABAP members know, ABAP accounts in sterling. If funds are received in foreign currencies they will be converted to sterling at the best rates available on the day. Any pro rata refunds will be expressed and made in sterling also so whilst we don’t wish to discourage financial support from those whose lives are fully engaged in a foreign financial environment, we do want you to be aware of the small costs involved in handling such subscriptions.
In the next few weeks ABAP will publish its proposals for handling the Staff Travel 2009 in terms of manpower. At that time it is likely that calls will be made for volunteers to form a working group (or any term avoiding the words "sub-committee" since this matter is unconnected with pensions, ABAP’s original concern) to decide on the precise action to be taken. This group will form the body which will ultimately decide on the expenditure of the Staff Travel Fighting Fund. As previously expressed, although it would be desirable for at least one representative from the ABAP committee to be on the working group, the group should also reflect the universe of concerned and affected pensioners internationally. Geographical location is not an impediment to active membership although time zones might mean a few early morning or late night conference calls for some!
Please make all contributions to the Staff Travel 2009 Fighting Fund payable to:
ABAP
and send them to:
ABAP Staff Travel Fighting Fund
Unit 10
Solent Industrial Estate
Hedge End
Southampton
SO30 2FX
Money received like this will be transferred to a special high interest account and only used for the Staff Travel 2009 campaign.
Many thanks for your support.
Friday, 1 February 2008
The first step in the campaign
ABAP has agreed that the Liaison Committee chaired by Sigrid Mapp which has a meeting scheduled with Willie Walsh on 11th February 2008 will fire the first salvo in our campaign to get the unacceptable elements of the Staff Travel 2009 proposal withdrawn.
You will have your own views on the potential effectiveness of this approach given that Ms Mapp and her Committee were, apparently, the "pensioners" with whom BA "consulted" before publishing the scheme. Nevertheless the results of that meeting will give ABAP a good idea of the company's attitude and most importantly whether they have seriously thought through all the implications of their proposal or whether it was hatched up on the back of a fag packet.
Dayne Markham for the Committee of ABAP agreed that I should contact Sigrid Mapp and effectively brief her on our position - a briefing drawn up from the many messages and letters I have received on behalf of ABAP in the past few weeks.
I'm quite sure that some people will feel I have not properly reflected their specific position or view but any concerted action over a matter like this which hits different people in different ways is unlikely to completely satisfy everyone. So if you're one who feels improperly represented please accept my apologies in advance and give me your understanding if not your 100% approval.
This is the message I sent to Sigrid Mapp:
Dear Sigrid
I am webmaster of the ABAP website and the person asked by ABAP to co-ordinate the activity on the specific issue of BA's Staff Travel 2009. I understand you are meeting with Willie Walsh on 11th February 2008 and have undertaken to ABAP to raise with him the considerable outrage there is from pensioners around the world. Dayne Markham, my main contact on the ABAP committee tells me that he has passed you some numbers of people who are in touch with me directly and an estimate of those who are in touch through those people.
Since these things are changing daily let me update you. I currently have direct contacts from over 100 people. Additionally two regions of the Retired Staff Association have contacted to give us their support and others are meeting to consider doing to in the very near future.
Each pensioner obviously feels most strongly about the aspects of the proposed scheme that affects them and no-one is ignoring the fact that the proposed changes also give some pensioners small improvements in their entitlements, but there is a common thread about which everyone is upset and that is the eligibility.
Eligibility
In this respect the principal objection is the inequity of the proposed changes. Quite apart from the detail, there is no logical reason why the scheme has been adopted with any inequalities in at all. In my blog which is available for you and your colleagues to read at
http://bastafftravel.blogspot.com (Note no "www")
I draw the comparison like this; if the Chancellor announces an increase in the standard rate of income tax, we're all affected but after a few days of press fuming, we all get on with it. On the other hand, if he announces a change that will penalise the poor or advantage the rich, the action raises a reaction from the population which far outweighs the number of people actually involved.
In just the same way, by including elements which mean that some people are disadvantaged while others are not BA has made a rod for its own back. The group on which the change in eligibility impinges is typically:
- amongst the oldest former staff. Ironically those who are least likely to be using their Staff Travel privileges very much, those who are likely to be the soonest to decide that travelling, especially long-distance is not for them and those who are most likely to die sooner than most other pensioners. In other words a small and declining number of people;
- amongst those who left the airline when it was seeking a reduction in staff numbers during the late 70's, 80's and early 90's - who feel they helped the airline when they could just as well have hung on, put in their service and let the airline worry about its staff costs. These people made the decision to accept severance with four things in mind. Firstly was their chance of continued employment on the open market. Secondly, was the lump sum which the company offered them. Thirdly was a deferred pension and fourthly the restitution of the Staff Travel entitlements once they started drawing their pension. They planned their lives with these four elements in mind and are extremely angry at the company deciding at a whim to withdraw one of those elements;
- amongst those are flying crew who were obliged by law to retire from the company at 55. These people are doubly penalised by the new scheme. Compared with other ground staff not only did they retire with up to 10 years less qualification under the new scheme's eligibility, but they also qualified 10 years earlier than other staff. That means that a senior member of management could have up to 20 years more eligibility under this scheme than a member of flying crew.
Is Staff Travel a non-contractual benefit?
The company is a great pains to emphasise that it regards Staff Travel as a non-contractual benefit which can be amended or withdrawn without notice. However, this was not always so and I have copies of letters of severance to retired staff which do not make this clear at all - no mention is made of the possibility that the entitlement can be withdrawn. If the company cannot present documentation that would satisfy a court of law that Staff Travel has always been a non-contractual entitlement it cannot morally (and perhaps legally) use that as a justification for changing the rules retrospectively.
Has Staff Travel become a right by Custom and Practice?
Staff Travel has been a benefit of employment since before WW2 - I have been offered a witnessed affidavit by the elderly wife of a former BOAC manager who recalls travelling on a rebated staff ticket to see relatives in Australia in the early 1930's. I accept that Custom and Practice is a tenuous principle on which to base a logical argument. However if the custom and practice has been extant for almost as long as there has been an airline industry, the principle may be more sound.
Why make the changes retrospective at all?
The company has been disingenuous to the point of naivety in many of the things it has written to staff. In particular is the justification for taking this action. I draw your attention to the third element of my blog at the address above in which I demolish the fatuous arguments written by Clare Hatchwell, Staff Travel Manager, to a pensioner who asked her why these actions were being taken. I won't waste your time by repeating the blog here, merely ask you to read it in detail. My blog includes not merely a demolition of Ms Hatchwell's nonsense but a suggestion which would make an impact on BA's costs in running Staff Travel which would be immediate and fair - that is to limit the number of 90% subload trips any staff, former staff or interline passengers can make in one year. It wouldn't be popular with either existing or former staff - I know some of both groups who will find that irksome to say the least, but it would be fair and it would reduce the costs of Staff Travel.
A reasonable request and practical propositions.
In presenting these strongly held objections on behalf of the pensioners involved, I am not being impractical. I realise that BA wants to introduce a scheme that is as close to that it has proposed for two reasons, firstly it will lose least "face" and secondly it will mean the fewest changes to the details already published.
On behalf of the pensioners I therefore propose that BA changes the scheme in just these two respects:
1 It removes the eligibility clause for all former employees;
2 It removes the time limits placed on Banked Long Service awards;
Both proposals make no increase in the workload of Staff Travel and neither prevents BA from introducing changes that apply to existing staff only.
I hope you will be able to go to your meeting with Mr Walsh and present these points as I have made them to you. I believe them to be reasonable and fair - and anything that can achieve that qualification will find little long-term objection from the universe of former staff as a whole.
I have been charged by ABAP with communicating your responses to this message and to the meeting you have with Mr Walsh. It has been suggested to me that during the initial consultations with BA on Staff Travel you were placed under a confidentiality clause. I trust you will not be inhibited by any such clause in future but can report to us (and of course to others) in detail the not only the outcome but the detail of your meeting.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Philip Howells
Webmaster
www.abap.org.uk
You will have your own views on the potential effectiveness of this approach given that Ms Mapp and her Committee were, apparently, the "pensioners" with whom BA "consulted" before publishing the scheme. Nevertheless the results of that meeting will give ABAP a good idea of the company's attitude and most importantly whether they have seriously thought through all the implications of their proposal or whether it was hatched up on the back of a fag packet.
Dayne Markham for the Committee of ABAP agreed that I should contact Sigrid Mapp and effectively brief her on our position - a briefing drawn up from the many messages and letters I have received on behalf of ABAP in the past few weeks.
I'm quite sure that some people will feel I have not properly reflected their specific position or view but any concerted action over a matter like this which hits different people in different ways is unlikely to completely satisfy everyone. So if you're one who feels improperly represented please accept my apologies in advance and give me your understanding if not your 100% approval.
This is the message I sent to Sigrid Mapp:
Dear Sigrid
I am webmaster of the ABAP website and the person asked by ABAP to co-ordinate the activity on the specific issue of BA's Staff Travel 2009. I understand you are meeting with Willie Walsh on 11th February 2008 and have undertaken to ABAP to raise with him the considerable outrage there is from pensioners around the world. Dayne Markham, my main contact on the ABAP committee tells me that he has passed you some numbers of people who are in touch with me directly and an estimate of those who are in touch through those people.
Since these things are changing daily let me update you. I currently have direct contacts from over 100 people. Additionally two regions of the Retired Staff Association have contacted to give us their support and others are meeting to consider doing to in the very near future.
Each pensioner obviously feels most strongly about the aspects of the proposed scheme that affects them and no-one is ignoring the fact that the proposed changes also give some pensioners small improvements in their entitlements, but there is a common thread about which everyone is upset and that is the eligibility.
Eligibility
In this respect the principal objection is the inequity of the proposed changes. Quite apart from the detail, there is no logical reason why the scheme has been adopted with any inequalities in at all. In my blog which is available for you and your colleagues to read at
http://bastafftravel.blogspot.com (Note no "www")
I draw the comparison like this; if the Chancellor announces an increase in the standard rate of income tax, we're all affected but after a few days of press fuming, we all get on with it. On the other hand, if he announces a change that will penalise the poor or advantage the rich, the action raises a reaction from the population which far outweighs the number of people actually involved.
In just the same way, by including elements which mean that some people are disadvantaged while others are not BA has made a rod for its own back. The group on which the change in eligibility impinges is typically:
- amongst the oldest former staff. Ironically those who are least likely to be using their Staff Travel privileges very much, those who are likely to be the soonest to decide that travelling, especially long-distance is not for them and those who are most likely to die sooner than most other pensioners. In other words a small and declining number of people;
- amongst those who left the airline when it was seeking a reduction in staff numbers during the late 70's, 80's and early 90's - who feel they helped the airline when they could just as well have hung on, put in their service and let the airline worry about its staff costs. These people made the decision to accept severance with four things in mind. Firstly was their chance of continued employment on the open market. Secondly, was the lump sum which the company offered them. Thirdly was a deferred pension and fourthly the restitution of the Staff Travel entitlements once they started drawing their pension. They planned their lives with these four elements in mind and are extremely angry at the company deciding at a whim to withdraw one of those elements;
- amongst those are flying crew who were obliged by law to retire from the company at 55. These people are doubly penalised by the new scheme. Compared with other ground staff not only did they retire with up to 10 years less qualification under the new scheme's eligibility, but they also qualified 10 years earlier than other staff. That means that a senior member of management could have up to 20 years more eligibility under this scheme than a member of flying crew.
Is Staff Travel a non-contractual benefit?
The company is a great pains to emphasise that it regards Staff Travel as a non-contractual benefit which can be amended or withdrawn without notice. However, this was not always so and I have copies of letters of severance to retired staff which do not make this clear at all - no mention is made of the possibility that the entitlement can be withdrawn. If the company cannot present documentation that would satisfy a court of law that Staff Travel has always been a non-contractual entitlement it cannot morally (and perhaps legally) use that as a justification for changing the rules retrospectively.
Has Staff Travel become a right by Custom and Practice?
Staff Travel has been a benefit of employment since before WW2 - I have been offered a witnessed affidavit by the elderly wife of a former BOAC manager who recalls travelling on a rebated staff ticket to see relatives in Australia in the early 1930's. I accept that Custom and Practice is a tenuous principle on which to base a logical argument. However if the custom and practice has been extant for almost as long as there has been an airline industry, the principle may be more sound.
Why make the changes retrospective at all?
The company has been disingenuous to the point of naivety in many of the things it has written to staff. In particular is the justification for taking this action. I draw your attention to the third element of my blog at the address above in which I demolish the fatuous arguments written by Clare Hatchwell, Staff Travel Manager, to a pensioner who asked her why these actions were being taken. I won't waste your time by repeating the blog here, merely ask you to read it in detail. My blog includes not merely a demolition of Ms Hatchwell's nonsense but a suggestion which would make an impact on BA's costs in running Staff Travel which would be immediate and fair - that is to limit the number of 90% subload trips any staff, former staff or interline passengers can make in one year. It wouldn't be popular with either existing or former staff - I know some of both groups who will find that irksome to say the least, but it would be fair and it would reduce the costs of Staff Travel.
A reasonable request and practical propositions.
In presenting these strongly held objections on behalf of the pensioners involved, I am not being impractical. I realise that BA wants to introduce a scheme that is as close to that it has proposed for two reasons, firstly it will lose least "face" and secondly it will mean the fewest changes to the details already published.
On behalf of the pensioners I therefore propose that BA changes the scheme in just these two respects:
1 It removes the eligibility clause for all former employees;
2 It removes the time limits placed on Banked Long Service awards;
Both proposals make no increase in the workload of Staff Travel and neither prevents BA from introducing changes that apply to existing staff only.
I hope you will be able to go to your meeting with Mr Walsh and present these points as I have made them to you. I believe them to be reasonable and fair - and anything that can achieve that qualification will find little long-term objection from the universe of former staff as a whole.
I have been charged by ABAP with communicating your responses to this message and to the meeting you have with Mr Walsh. It has been suggested to me that during the initial consultations with BA on Staff Travel you were placed under a confidentiality clause. I trust you will not be inhibited by any such clause in future but can report to us (and of course to others) in detail the not only the outcome but the detail of your meeting.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Philip Howells
Webmaster
www.abap.org.uk
Sunday, 20 January 2008
British Airways leaking from the top
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.
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:
Posts (Atom)