Found in the press today.
BAA, the airport operator, paid its security staff to protest at a public inquiry hearing evidence about the environmental damage that would be caused by the expansion of Stansted.
The staff were given paid time off from carrying out security checks at the Essex airport to support their employer’s application to increase the number of flights by 75,000 a year. People living under Stansted’s flight paths accused BAA of sacrificing customer service to stage a bogus protest.
More than 40 BAA staff and airport contractors attended the inquiry yesterday at a building close to the passenger terminal. The Timeshas learnt that BAA encouraged staff to join the protest by suggesting that their jobs would be at risk unless the expansion was approved.
Ryanair and other airlines that use the airport have repeatedly accused BAA of failing to provide enough security staff to cope with the extra checks introduced last year. Scanning machines are frequently left unmanned and passengers have to queue for up to an hour to pass through security.
(...)
BAA admitted that staff had been given time off to attend the inquiry.
But it claimed that there had been no impact on passengers because the protest began after the morning peak.
The company also admitted that its claim that jobs could be lost was based on the theory that airlines would move to other airports if expansion was rejected. It failed to point out to its staff that all other London airports were either full or close to capacity.
Brian Ross, of Stop Stansted Expansion, said BAA had misled staff to suit its commercial agenda. “It is bizarre when passengers are standing in security queues to send security staff to protest about the local MP speaking at a public inquiry.
“Many of our supporters are airport employees who feel that enough is enough and that excessive expansion could threaten their future job security, not to mention their quality of life.”
Quite a weird example of a
PR-policy, isn't it?
Source: The Times