BMI refuse to cut flights at LHR over BAA security fiasco
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: GA USA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMI refuse to cut flights at LHR over BAA security fiasco
London Evening Standard reported last night that bmi faced being banned from LHR (yeah right!!!) for not cancelling 20% of flights over the weekend.
Could have an impact if the strike gets the nod ....
Could have an impact if the strike gets the nod ....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A Farm
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't understand it BA have stated over the last few days that the baa have asked all Lhr airlines to cancel 20 - 30%. This,we are told that this is the reason BA has cancelled so many flights. ( I don't dobut that some of these were due to BA crews/aircraft being out of poistion ) But bmi have cancelled only 2 or 3 flights.
I don't understand ??
Any Answers ???
I don't understand ??
Any Answers ???
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has all gone very quiet at bmi. There was not a single whisper throughout all of this from the CEO. Maybe the people who would have taken the decision as to which flights to cancel were on leave.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuzzy112
It has all gone very quiet at bmi. There was not a single whisper throughout all of this from the CEO. Maybe the people who would have taken the decision as to which flights to cancel were on leave.
Now if bmi had cancelled flights wholesale they would have been wrong, so when they DONT cancel they are still wrong in some peoples minds.
Worth noting that on Tuesday bmi only cancelled 1 flight.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DRJ. Yes I missed the Radio 4 interview. I am sure it would have been very enlightening.
I don't think the company would just still be wrong in some peoples minds - they would be in breach of a directive given by the operator of the airport. It sounds to me as if they should have been cancelling flights wholesale to comply with the BAA and decided not to comply - a very dangerous course of action given the threatened consequences!
I don't think the company would just still be wrong in some peoples minds - they would be in breach of a directive given by the operator of the airport. It sounds to me as if they should have been cancelling flights wholesale to comply with the BAA and decided not to comply - a very dangerous course of action given the threatened consequences!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LHR
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to note that BAA issued the directive on Saturday afternoon with less than 30 mins notice.
So bmi maybe banned from LHR for operating a couple of sectors on Saturday afternoon, where the pax/bags had already been processed through security?
BAA fail to mention they imposed sanctions against bmi on Sunday.
Is this BAA trying to deflect the growing attention to their inadequacies over the weekend? Or is someone taking the proverbial...........
So bmi maybe banned from LHR for operating a couple of sectors on Saturday afternoon, where the pax/bags had already been processed through security?
BAA fail to mention they imposed sanctions against bmi on Sunday.
Is this BAA trying to deflect the growing attention to their inadequacies over the weekend? Or is someone taking the proverbial...........
So if BA (and all other carriers) can comply with a BAA directive - whether it's right or not isn't the issue - why can't (or won't) bmi?
NT's position fits the pattern of utter arrogance that pervades bmi's managment culture.
A directive from an organisation with the authority to do so? F**k you!
Here are the weasel-words from the bmi press release, by the way....
Late on Saturday evening the airline received a directive from the BAA concerning a reduction of frequencies for Sunday 13th August.
bmi has a duty to its passengers and has a key focus on punctuality and this is something that the airlines within the bmi group are still attempting to sustain, even though conditions are challenging
It continues here
NT's position fits the pattern of utter arrogance that pervades bmi's managment culture.
A directive from an organisation with the authority to do so? F**k you!
Here are the weasel-words from the bmi press release, by the way....
Late on Saturday evening the airline received a directive from the BAA concerning a reduction of frequencies for Sunday 13th August.
bmi has a duty to its passengers and has a key focus on punctuality and this is something that the airlines within the bmi group are still attempting to sustain, even though conditions are challenging
It continues here
Last edited by RevMan2; 16th Aug 2006 at 08:21.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LHR, NQY
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RevMan2
So if BA (and all other carriers) can comply with a BAA directive - whether it's right or not isn't the issue - why can't (or won't) bmi?
NT's position fits the pattern of utter arrogance that pervades bmi's managment culture.
A directive from an organisation with the authority to do so? F**k you!
NT's position fits the pattern of utter arrogance that pervades bmi's managment culture.
A directive from an organisation with the authority to do so? F**k you!
On this issue (alone) I'm with Mr Turner. Midland staff have worked extremely hard to keep the flying programme as close to 100% as possible and done a much better job than its nearest competitor. Then the airport operators comes along and says it will have to cancel flights just because it looks bad for other carriers. Why shouldn't the CEO highlight the stupidity of this?
The CEO's prime responsibility is to the company's owners, shareholders and employees (the latter if we're talking about an enlightened company, and hence included in the context of bmi purely hypothetically).
Going head-to-head with and risking sanctions (and consequential financial loss) by the outfit that controls a scarce resource i.e. airport facilities in a Code Red security level environment is not doing your job.
Too right - bring back Austin!
Going head-to-head with and risking sanctions (and consequential financial loss) by the outfit that controls a scarce resource i.e. airport facilities in a Code Red security level environment is not doing your job.
Originally Posted by Count von Altibar
Turner is a man on the way out so it won't matter a month from now...
Last edited by RevMan2; 16th Aug 2006 at 11:34.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LHR, NQY
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RevMan2
Going head-to-head with and risking sanctions (and consequential financial loss) by the outfit that controls a scarce resource i.e. airport facilities in a Code Red security level environment is not doing your job.
Originally Posted by RevMan2
The CEO's prime responsibility is to the company's owners, shareholders and employees (the latter if we're talking about an enlightened company, Too right - bring back Austin!
Originally Posted by ajamieson
Bmi only has owners, not shareholders. And that's Mr Reid to you
And as for "And that's Mr Reid to you" - check your PM.
Last edited by RevMan2; 16th Aug 2006 at 13:07.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that every airline at LHR were given the 'notice to cancel flights' at the same times means that airlines who didnt, were in effect putting 2 fingers up to the BAA, CAA and the Government.
If airlines such as BA who have a massive schedule can work out a revised one within the specified time, why couldnt bmi who operate just a fraction of flights... Its all a matter of taking responsability and doing what is required. Deal with the 'fallout' from passengers in due course as other carriers are having to do.
bmi - You failed in your duty as an airline operating out of LHR, to comply with 'emergency requirements' laid down by the airport operator, which were handed out to help all airlines get back to normal as soon as possible. Yes, time was limited but you didnt make any effort to comply. Hell mend you. Lets hope you realise what you have done, and accept the consequences (if any). By operating as normal, you have put preassure on other carriers and their passengers demanding to know why you were flying and other airlines were not, stranding passengers. May the wrath of the UK aviation community be with you
If airlines such as BA who have a massive schedule can work out a revised one within the specified time, why couldnt bmi who operate just a fraction of flights... Its all a matter of taking responsability and doing what is required. Deal with the 'fallout' from passengers in due course as other carriers are having to do.
bmi - You failed in your duty as an airline operating out of LHR, to comply with 'emergency requirements' laid down by the airport operator, which were handed out to help all airlines get back to normal as soon as possible. Yes, time was limited but you didnt make any effort to comply. Hell mend you. Lets hope you realise what you have done, and accept the consequences (if any). By operating as normal, you have put preassure on other carriers and their passengers demanding to know why you were flying and other airlines were not, stranding passengers. May the wrath of the UK aviation community be with you
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez tristar calm down.
bmi would probably say they did their part by getting ride of all their premium pax earlier in the year, and now putting the Emb145 on a lot of their routes at weekends
bmi would probably say they did their part by getting ride of all their premium pax earlier in the year, and now putting the Emb145 on a lot of their routes at weekends
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tristar500 - Hell mend you
A quick gaze at the bmi website -
'Consequently, at Heathrow bmi brought in its own extra staff and introduced an additional baggage belt and worked closely with the BAA enabling it to operate a near normal schedule with about five combined services. The lighter booked loads for weekend travel also assisted in this instance.'
'This was achieved without any adverse affect upon the Heathrow community and with the support and help of the local BAA management.A combination of excellent customer cooperation and the unreserved support from staff has enabled the bmi group to minimise the level of disruption through an extremely trying period.'
, also bmi's LHR schedule is far less at a weekend due to the extensive Charter operation this season.IMHO
edited to put the blue boxes round the quotes! sorry.
As I posted previously- weasel-words from the PR machine.
BAA didn't want fewer aircraft movements - it wanted a lower passenger throughput, to compensate the increased stress on security staff and to better manage a Code Red security environment.
Everyone played along, bmi didn't.
"No adverse effect on the Heathrow community"? Come off it! Anything that deviates from normal operations has an adverse effect on the entire system.
Hats off to the people on the ground, who are excellent.
Why their management makes them jump through hoops and risks the business, I don't know.
Well, actually - I do.....
BAA didn't want fewer aircraft movements - it wanted a lower passenger throughput, to compensate the increased stress on security staff and to better manage a Code Red security environment.
Everyone played along, bmi didn't.
"No adverse effect on the Heathrow community"? Come off it! Anything that deviates from normal operations has an adverse effect on the entire system.
Hats off to the people on the ground, who are excellent.
Why their management makes them jump through hoops and risks the business, I don't know.
Well, actually - I do.....
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Moo
Did they not have bigger a/c ava due to Tapestry holidays going bust so bigger a/c ava
Whilst Tapestry's sad ceasation of trading meant the OB BD7021 went with nil pax the IB BD7022 operated on behalf of the caa to repatriate stranded Tapestry Pax.
The nett result was 156 less pax to be searched and processed by the "Stressed" HAL security team and 156 less pax movements Thru T1.
The decision to operate a near normal schedule was not driven by a blatant disregard of the Heathrow "Community" rather a need to carry pax (Believe me it would have been much easier to pull the shutters down and tell pax to come back tommorow than continue to attempt an operation in the chaos that was T1).
The outcry and condemnation being showered on bmi is more to do with Big Airways throwing its toys out of the pram due to the limited schedule it operated and the resultant press coverage, Than any genuine public opinion that bmi has disregarded the BAA directive.
Lets not lose sight of the fact that the BAA is now a private entity and certain forum posters seem to go to great lengths to ensure they dont let the truth get in the way of a good story and take every opportunity to knock bmi for doing what its CUSTOMERS really WANTED .... Take them from A to B with the minimum of delay and fuss in what was a chaotic situation not made easier by the bumblings of an inefficent airport operator.
Notice that the only airports to totaly fail to cope with the imposition of the new and amended regulations were BAA managed.....
Commercial Considerations
From my perspective, I fully understand BMIs position. If somebody effectively asks you to slash your revenue, whilst still carrying all your costs, then the natural reaction of any business, let alone one in the precarious business of aviation is to say " ... unless you or somebody else compensates me - BUGGER OFF !!."
As far as I can see, that is the reason Big Airlines are suing Bloody Awful Airports for the huge cost, disruption etc. caused over the last week. (I think I heard a sum of £300 M.) Did I hear right that an empty 74 had to cross the pond yesterday just to reunite 1,500 bags with their owners ?
I sure hope that if the 24 are charged and convicted then all their assets are seized and sold and the proceeds distributed to those that have lost out by their actions.
Revenue and profit might be nasty words when balanced against national security and the safety of SLF but without them we won't have an industry.
As far as I can see, that is the reason Big Airlines are suing Bloody Awful Airports for the huge cost, disruption etc. caused over the last week. (I think I heard a sum of £300 M.) Did I hear right that an empty 74 had to cross the pond yesterday just to reunite 1,500 bags with their owners ?
I sure hope that if the 24 are charged and convicted then all their assets are seized and sold and the proceeds distributed to those that have lost out by their actions.
Revenue and profit might be nasty words when balanced against national security and the safety of SLF but without them we won't have an industry.