Two stories emerged yesterday which again show BA’s cavalier attitude towards its passengers and its inability to spot when it’s time for a quick and genuine apology or an urgent review of the product.
The first story concerned two economy class offloads and was a story that should have dealt with by a junior manager, ideally at the station where it occurred. Instead the two offloads turned out to be relatives of the boss of Ladbrokes, the bookie. His reaction was to direct his £2million account be denied to BA. After the story had bounced around the world and appeared in every important newspaper on its way doing untold damage to BA’s reputation and reinforcing the bad image most people have about BA service Mr Walsh is forced to issue a personal apology. Result, BA retains £2m of business.
Meanwhile, Clive Sturm, a computer programmer who travels Business Class - just the sort of man who adds the profit to BA operations - is so screwed up by BA’s Executive Club that he writes a damning piece on his blog with language so profane that I couldn’t risk offending the sensitive eyes of the Liaison Council (who regular readers will recall took exception to me calling them BA’s "acolytes") by repeating it here.
Instead hardier souls can read the piece for themselves at
http://www.sturmnet.org/blog/archives/2008/05/21/ba-executive-club-ridiculous/
What should trouble us as people whose pensions depend on the commercial success of BA is that managers in BA are either scared stiff or utterly inept and allow either of these stories to exist at all.
If Airport Managers and staff in Executive Clubs can’t take appropriate action to solve these problems at source why are they employed?
Or is it that they’re scared to death of risking illogical and unjustified criticism from the boardroom for taking some initiative?
Either way, it’s no way to run an airline.
Thursday, 22 May 2008
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
The Poisoned Chalice - what happens next spring?
I wasn’t going to mention this subject here because when it first arose it seemed just a little too parochial - and the Manchester Evening News published my comments anyway. However, today, when the BA share price fell 6% and two leading investment banks, Deutsche Bank and ABN-Amro, recommended investors to sell, the issue became global.
Also, my critics will be pleased to note that although it’s an announcement by Mr Walsh that’s triggered the further reduction in the value of our old company, he’s not entirely to blame. And if any readers should be surprised that there are pensioners who are critical of my views about the BA CEO let me assure you there are; at least one thinks I bear him a personal grudge, and another is partner to a BA Manager - so you can make up your own mind whose view that is.
The issue which knocked more than one twentieth off the value of the airline is the announcement by Mr Walsh that to save money this winter BA is going to reduce services, temporarily retiring some of the older and less economical aircraft. Of course he could save all his operating costs and not fly any aircraft at all, but that would be silly wouldn’t it?
If you said yes, then prepare for a surprise for that’s exactly what BA is doing to the customers who regard Manchester as their gateway to the world. After over 30 years of flying non-stop daily from Manchester to New York, British Airways is withdrawing from the route. The reason - according to the maestro of aviation sales strategy - because the route is "too competitive".
Too competitive? When Mr Walsh was still in primary school I led the marketing team that worked alongside our colleagues in sales and operations to launch the Manchester - New York non-stop daily. And it was tough. Like most national carriers in those days BOAC operated from a national base, Heathrow, just as Air France did from Paris and Alitalia did from Rome. Persuading the planners at BOAC to even consider a non-stop from Manchester was close to revolutionary but we did it.
And what would BOAC have done if the Manchester-USA business had got "competitive"? Our salesmen would’ve have hit the streets, knocking on the doors of customers and their agents, reminding them of our product’s USPs, our marketing team would have hammered the message home with promotions and some advertising, and operations would have made doubly sure our airport service was second to none - all persuading our customers that we deserved their support.
But not in Willie Walsh’s BA. No, now when the going gets tough, BA drops out.
So from next October American, Delta, Continental, United and BMI will have the entire market to themselves.
Actually it’s not Willie Walsh’s fault, but the fault of those who went before him. As the Manchester-based Business Account Manager for Air France reminded me the other day, whereas she and her colleagues in most of the major airlines have full time jobs calling on their main business clients, British Airways has reduced its sales force to - nil. That’s right, zilch, zero, nada. The only tool British Airways has in its sales armoury is to lower the price. That’s it. The Easyjet/Ryanair solution.
So reverting to Mr Walsh’s decision to downsize for the winter, frankly that’s all he can do, but any salesman worth his salt knows that the job waiting for him next spring is really tough. If Walsh thinks that keeping Manchester - New York going was too competitive, wait until he finds out how hard it is to grow a small airline back into the big airline BA is today.
A number of newspapers have already asked the question I posed some while ago - how long will it be before British Airways is accused of misrepresentation - for it is de facto already "Heathrow Airways".
That begs the question, which is the national carrier? For some time after privatisation BA could claim that title with little argument, but today? Well it depends how you define "national carrier". If you mean the airline that earns most revenue in Britain, the answer might even be Emirates for with non-stop flights from Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow and Newcastle as well as London to Dubai, Emirates is making a fortune out of travel from UK to the Far East and Australia.
Surprised? You shouldn’t be because the CEO of Emirates, the man who took the company from an ambition to the world-class airline it is today, is the man who was Manager, Midlands and Northern England for BOAC when that airline started the Manchester-New York non-stop service.
Finally, the press have already started the selection process for Mr Walsh’s successor at BA, though it might be harder than they think. One senior and much respected airline supremo said to me recently "the BA job’s a poisoned chalice now, God knows how much worse it’ll be after Walsh has finished running it down".
Poisoned chalice or not, one name that is cropping up is that of James Hogan - the Australian currently leading Etihad Airways, the UAE carrier fast-becoming a second Emirates. Hogan started in ticketing and sales for Ansett and before his Etihad post was head at Gulf Airways. An interesting insight into how different his thoughts are to those of Mr Walsh can be read at
http://www.newarabia.net/James_hogan.htm
An interesting read.
Also, my critics will be pleased to note that although it’s an announcement by Mr Walsh that’s triggered the further reduction in the value of our old company, he’s not entirely to blame. And if any readers should be surprised that there are pensioners who are critical of my views about the BA CEO let me assure you there are; at least one thinks I bear him a personal grudge, and another is partner to a BA Manager - so you can make up your own mind whose view that is.
The issue which knocked more than one twentieth off the value of the airline is the announcement by Mr Walsh that to save money this winter BA is going to reduce services, temporarily retiring some of the older and less economical aircraft. Of course he could save all his operating costs and not fly any aircraft at all, but that would be silly wouldn’t it?
If you said yes, then prepare for a surprise for that’s exactly what BA is doing to the customers who regard Manchester as their gateway to the world. After over 30 years of flying non-stop daily from Manchester to New York, British Airways is withdrawing from the route. The reason - according to the maestro of aviation sales strategy - because the route is "too competitive".
Too competitive? When Mr Walsh was still in primary school I led the marketing team that worked alongside our colleagues in sales and operations to launch the Manchester - New York non-stop daily. And it was tough. Like most national carriers in those days BOAC operated from a national base, Heathrow, just as Air France did from Paris and Alitalia did from Rome. Persuading the planners at BOAC to even consider a non-stop from Manchester was close to revolutionary but we did it.
And what would BOAC have done if the Manchester-USA business had got "competitive"? Our salesmen would’ve have hit the streets, knocking on the doors of customers and their agents, reminding them of our product’s USPs, our marketing team would have hammered the message home with promotions and some advertising, and operations would have made doubly sure our airport service was second to none - all persuading our customers that we deserved their support.
But not in Willie Walsh’s BA. No, now when the going gets tough, BA drops out.
So from next October American, Delta, Continental, United and BMI will have the entire market to themselves.
Actually it’s not Willie Walsh’s fault, but the fault of those who went before him. As the Manchester-based Business Account Manager for Air France reminded me the other day, whereas she and her colleagues in most of the major airlines have full time jobs calling on their main business clients, British Airways has reduced its sales force to - nil. That’s right, zilch, zero, nada. The only tool British Airways has in its sales armoury is to lower the price. That’s it. The Easyjet/Ryanair solution.
So reverting to Mr Walsh’s decision to downsize for the winter, frankly that’s all he can do, but any salesman worth his salt knows that the job waiting for him next spring is really tough. If Walsh thinks that keeping Manchester - New York going was too competitive, wait until he finds out how hard it is to grow a small airline back into the big airline BA is today.
A number of newspapers have already asked the question I posed some while ago - how long will it be before British Airways is accused of misrepresentation - for it is de facto already "Heathrow Airways".
That begs the question, which is the national carrier? For some time after privatisation BA could claim that title with little argument, but today? Well it depends how you define "national carrier". If you mean the airline that earns most revenue in Britain, the answer might even be Emirates for with non-stop flights from Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow and Newcastle as well as London to Dubai, Emirates is making a fortune out of travel from UK to the Far East and Australia.
Surprised? You shouldn’t be because the CEO of Emirates, the man who took the company from an ambition to the world-class airline it is today, is the man who was Manager, Midlands and Northern England for BOAC when that airline started the Manchester-New York non-stop service.
Finally, the press have already started the selection process for Mr Walsh’s successor at BA, though it might be harder than they think. One senior and much respected airline supremo said to me recently "the BA job’s a poisoned chalice now, God knows how much worse it’ll be after Walsh has finished running it down".
Poisoned chalice or not, one name that is cropping up is that of James Hogan - the Australian currently leading Etihad Airways, the UAE carrier fast-becoming a second Emirates. Hogan started in ticketing and sales for Ansett and before his Etihad post was head at Gulf Airways. An interesting insight into how different his thoughts are to those of Mr Walsh can be read at
http://www.newarabia.net/James_hogan.htm
An interesting read.
Monday, 12 May 2008
The 24-hour rolling news syndrome
Sometimes campaigns like that ABAP’s Staff Travel Working Group is engaged on seem to have lost momentum, to be drifting or be losing direction. It is what can be called the 24 hour rolling news syndrome. In this syndrome a relationship is formed between the ease or speed of communication and the need for news to fill the space created by that speed. Radio 5 in the UK is probably the classic example.
Created effectively on Radio 4 FM during the first Gulf war, the end of that conflict showed the problem in stark reality and were the BBC not publicly funded but had to earn its revenues there is little doubt that Radio 5 would never have existed. In fact, once the conflict was finished most people were content to return to their traditional news sources but the BBC decided that it would extend its taxpayer-funded empire and established a permanent 24-hour, rolling news station on AM, taking over frequencies formerly used by regional radio services. At once it was clear that without a war to report by the minute, news itself was not enough to hold the listener and Radio 5 added sport, and longer interviews. Ten years later the extent to which it has failed in its original brief is evidenced by the continued existence of news services on all the remaining radio channels.
In our case the syndrome manifests itself by creating in the minds of our supporters the idea that absence of news means absence of action or even worse. The truth isn’t like that at all, but is simply that some things take longer to happen than others. In the BBC Radio 5 equivalent, we’ve reached a lull in the conflict; in reality we are waiting for results from our legal advisers.
And in our case this process is made slower still by the proper need to finance our activities separately from the main ABAP financial resources. Whereas a large commercial firm could simply seek a legal opinion and deal with the costs later, we have to establish absolute costs before the event to ensure that we don’t spend what we don’t have.
That in turn is why the campaign to raise funds by individual contributions continues with such importance.
Evidence that we may be having some effect on British Airways management comes from the number of people who took your writer aside at the event reported below and to various degrees conveyed advice or straightforward threats that he should abandon this campaign. Various penalties were suggested. More significantly, none of those issuing the advice/threat was prepared to be named. Frankly, like spoiled ballot papers, such views or threats don’t count. Furthermore I reiterate my invitation to publish on my blog the views of anyone wishing to offer their point of view. Any such views will either be published in full or not published at all and this will only occur if they are deemed by my legal advisor to result in legal liability. Furthermore, the medium through which the blog is published (Blogspot) does not permit amendment of the comments submitted ie they cannot be censored.
The additional news I can publish is that Dayne Markham and your writer were invited to speak recently at a luncheon of former senior BOAC managers and board members - and informally meet with some equivalent former BEA colleagues lunching at the same time in the same place. We summarised the campaign to date and Dayne explained why ABAP’s Committee felt that while the Staff Travel issue clearly falls within the competence and limits of ABAP’s constitution, it was necessary to draw a distinction between ABAP’s ongoing negotiations with BA Pensions and the Working Group’s campaign to even start negotiating with BA over the Staff Travel issue. All our presentations, both formal and informal were warmly received, generally supported in the same way that support has been throughout ie in relation to the extent to which individuals are affected by the proposed changes.
The meetings did produce some specific contacts which the ABAP Working Group will be pursuing urgently and the results of those efforts will be reported here in due course.
Inevitably there is a minority view that all this isn’t worth the candle, that questioning and seeking to change the mind of a powerful and worldwide company is a futile waste of time; some ludicrously continue to suggest that this is driven by individual grudge. The last point is so stupid that comment is almost unnecessary; suffice to say that here and in the blog the writer has consistently said that the issue is not about personalities but about unfairness. They cite our recognition that we may not succeed as a reason not to try. That these same people once led BOAC and BEA through some extraordinarily difficult times both operationally and financially with tenacity and wisdom can only suggest that there may truly be no country for old men, or certainly for old brains. For our part it is enough to reiterate the caution to those opposing our (futile) objectives in British Airways that the adversary who has nothing to lose is a dangerous adversary indeed.
This item is also appearing in the news section of the ABAP website.
Created effectively on Radio 4 FM during the first Gulf war, the end of that conflict showed the problem in stark reality and were the BBC not publicly funded but had to earn its revenues there is little doubt that Radio 5 would never have existed. In fact, once the conflict was finished most people were content to return to their traditional news sources but the BBC decided that it would extend its taxpayer-funded empire and established a permanent 24-hour, rolling news station on AM, taking over frequencies formerly used by regional radio services. At once it was clear that without a war to report by the minute, news itself was not enough to hold the listener and Radio 5 added sport, and longer interviews. Ten years later the extent to which it has failed in its original brief is evidenced by the continued existence of news services on all the remaining radio channels.
In our case the syndrome manifests itself by creating in the minds of our supporters the idea that absence of news means absence of action or even worse. The truth isn’t like that at all, but is simply that some things take longer to happen than others. In the BBC Radio 5 equivalent, we’ve reached a lull in the conflict; in reality we are waiting for results from our legal advisers.
And in our case this process is made slower still by the proper need to finance our activities separately from the main ABAP financial resources. Whereas a large commercial firm could simply seek a legal opinion and deal with the costs later, we have to establish absolute costs before the event to ensure that we don’t spend what we don’t have.
That in turn is why the campaign to raise funds by individual contributions continues with such importance.
Evidence that we may be having some effect on British Airways management comes from the number of people who took your writer aside at the event reported below and to various degrees conveyed advice or straightforward threats that he should abandon this campaign. Various penalties were suggested. More significantly, none of those issuing the advice/threat was prepared to be named. Frankly, like spoiled ballot papers, such views or threats don’t count. Furthermore I reiterate my invitation to publish on my blog the views of anyone wishing to offer their point of view. Any such views will either be published in full or not published at all and this will only occur if they are deemed by my legal advisor to result in legal liability. Furthermore, the medium through which the blog is published (Blogspot) does not permit amendment of the comments submitted ie they cannot be censored.
The additional news I can publish is that Dayne Markham and your writer were invited to speak recently at a luncheon of former senior BOAC managers and board members - and informally meet with some equivalent former BEA colleagues lunching at the same time in the same place. We summarised the campaign to date and Dayne explained why ABAP’s Committee felt that while the Staff Travel issue clearly falls within the competence and limits of ABAP’s constitution, it was necessary to draw a distinction between ABAP’s ongoing negotiations with BA Pensions and the Working Group’s campaign to even start negotiating with BA over the Staff Travel issue. All our presentations, both formal and informal were warmly received, generally supported in the same way that support has been throughout ie in relation to the extent to which individuals are affected by the proposed changes.
The meetings did produce some specific contacts which the ABAP Working Group will be pursuing urgently and the results of those efforts will be reported here in due course.
Inevitably there is a minority view that all this isn’t worth the candle, that questioning and seeking to change the mind of a powerful and worldwide company is a futile waste of time; some ludicrously continue to suggest that this is driven by individual grudge. The last point is so stupid that comment is almost unnecessary; suffice to say that here and in the blog the writer has consistently said that the issue is not about personalities but about unfairness. They cite our recognition that we may not succeed as a reason not to try. That these same people once led BOAC and BEA through some extraordinarily difficult times both operationally and financially with tenacity and wisdom can only suggest that there may truly be no country for old men, or certainly for old brains. For our part it is enough to reiterate the caution to those opposing our (futile) objectives in British Airways that the adversary who has nothing to lose is a dangerous adversary indeed.
This item is also appearing in the news section of the ABAP website.
Saturday, 19 April 2008
Honesty - the lost virtue at British Airways
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.)
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.)
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)