Originally Posted by
slast
RunningRidges - Excellent points well made. In the 1980s BA also faced an “existential crisis” with massive numbers cuts and changes to T&Cs across the board. It was successfully handled because under the leadership of Mark Young, who was BALPA General Sec at the time. Young was a tough, working class street-fighting Geordie, once a Communist but the person who had pulled the rug from under the Communists in a ballot rigging scandal at the Electrical Trades Union (EETPU).
As leader of ALL the TUs on a joint negotiation he pushed through a programme whereby there were NO compulsory redundancies BUT a lot of voluntary ones, plus T&C changes. A critical aspect was allowing BA to redeployment of ANY employee to a different role, but with protected pay. So surplus pilots ended up as cabin crew, doing office jobs, loaders, securty guards or whatever. When the storm had passed, they were recalled to where new pilot vacancies were.
(As an aside, having been dragged kicking and screaming from the RHS on a VC10 to the rear galley on a 707 or whatever, some found that having no responsibility but most of their normal income plus being generally a straight minority male working with lots of female CC on LH schedules wasn’t too much of a bad deal, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming back…).
Anyway the point is that proposing and publicising a massive and drastic action, and recognizing that it’s an all-employees crisis is likely to be the only possible way to shield from the predatory actions of the £$%&*s now running the company.
See also
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/b...nity-66znfh7rr
Petition signed and watching with huge concern from the sidelines
Strongly agree with both of you and thanks for your input.
"... this maelstrom has given them cover to do what they wanted to do anyway."...we all know this is very true.
Before announcing the mass dismissal of the entire workforce there should have been a civilized discussion around all other options on the table, all options ranging from voluntary redundancies to more part time contracts, unpaid leave, even reduced salaries for all on a temporary basis and much much more, anything that would have saved jobs in the long term.
Nobody is expecting 100% pay during these difficult times and the top priority is to save as many jobs as possible.
The BA top Management's approach means clearly that "this maelstrom has given them cover to do what they wanted to do anyway" so they will have to explain their actions in front of the Transport Committee. They should not be afraid to attend if there is nothing to hide.
" We did invite Willie Walsh, of IAG, to attend as a witness but he is tied up with a board meeting. This is unfortunate because Willie is not backwards in coming forwards. Instead, Airlines UK, the umbrella organisation for UK airlines, which includes BA, will give evidence alongside the Chief Executive of Heathrow and others. In the next session, on 20 May, we will hear from the unions and the Aviation Minister."
"If Willie Walsh is tied up then he should run an organisation where he can delegate someone to speak on his behalf."
These are the words of the Chair of the Transport Committee, the MP who represents the UK Public during this crisis re. the BA announcement and he is simply furious because he is trying to do his job in the interest of the British public and Tax Payers whilst Willie Walsh replies that he cannot attend because he has got more important things to do. Really? What can it be more important than the Chair of the Transport Committee during this Crisis? Let's hope that Willie Walsh will also do his job and attend or at least provide a credible reason for not attending or delegate. His salary is well above all of us on this forum combined but he can choose not to attend such an important meeting. Or maybe the truth is that he does not want to attend...? The meeting is on video conference so he should definitely attend as this is affecting 12K human beings and beyond. This crisis is affecting BA and the UK Aviation industry more than anything else we have seen before in aviation history...and he cannot attend. Is this a joke? In his role he should not have a choice. It should be a mandatory attendance.
In other countries is ILLEGAL to announce or plan redundancies during the COVID19 crisis and whilst Governments have stepped in with JRS measures. In the UK has not been declared illegal however this is implied indirectly within the JRS legislation, this was the intention of the legislator, to simply avoid redundancies and restructuring until the Crisis is over.
Next Wed 06th of May live on BBC Parliament the below:
"Willie Walsh not attending"Dear Allison, Thank you for your message. I am incredibly sorry that, at this time of great uncertainty for the nation, British Airways, and their parent, IAG, have made a decision to put thousands of employees through a consultation with a view to 12,000 redundancies across its workforce. From a local perspective, and not always appreciated by all constituents, I have been a vocal supporter of Gatwick and of BA at Gatwick. The constituency I represent has relatively low wages compared to the regional norm. Those who work at Gatwick are able to boost our local economy. This is even more important at this current time. Talk of BA withdrawing from Gatwick would be devastating for our local economy and our ability to connect with the globe. From a national perspective, I chair the Transport Select Committee. Next Wednesday morning, we are holding our first session on our Inquiry around Aviation and the impact from Coronavirus. Details are below:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/c...ansport-19-21/ We did invite Willie Walsh, of IAG, to attend as a witness but he is tied up with a board meeting. This is unfortunate because Willie is not backwards in coming forwards. Instead, Airlines UK, the umbrella organisation for UK airlines, which includes BA, will give evidence alongside the Chief Executive of Heathrow and others. In the next session, on 20 May, we will hear from the unions and the Aviation Minister. We will be asking about the planned redundancies. Of key concern to me is whether BA are using this epidemic environment to restructure. I appreciate that there is huge uncertainty, and a view that the market may not return to pre-Covid times until 2023 (if it does). BA, and it’s parent, have to prepare for this. The furloughing scheme will not last indefinitely but BA have been fast out of the blocks if this is just a reaction to the Covid 19 epidemic. My concern on this front is not helped by the news, which has just now broken, that IAG has just taken out a €1 billion Spanish state-backed loan. Previously, Willie Walsh lambasted other airlines for looking for state aid. With £7billion of reserves, IAG stated that it would address internally with ‘self-help’ before it resorted to Government aid. It is important that this ‘self-help’ is not job losses in the UK, as opposed to the position in Spain where fewer job losses are expected and the company has sought Government finance. I hasten to add that it is my understanding that IAG/BA have not come to the UK Government or Bank of England to ask for aid before making the announcement on redundancies. There are many questions which require answers from BA. As a result, I have sought permission from my committee members to ensure that BA do appear before the Transport Select Committee. If Willie Walsh is tied up then he should run an organisation where he can delegate someone to speak on his behalf. This is all moving at pace but I hope it demonstrates that I will use my local and national voice to hold British Airways to account. I have also reached out to other MPs to ramp up the pressure. You will be able to watch our virtual Select Committee proceedings, either on Parliament TV or BBC Parliament (which tends to catch up). With best wishes,"