BAA strike threat.

[the bald eagle]

so long as my pension doesn't go down the tubes!

Your pension along with every one else's went down the tubes years ago mate

[glad rag]

Yep wake up and smell the coffee O OddOne...

Personally, I'm really hoping that this strike can be averted.

[coopervane]

Does anyone think that if the BAA strike goes ahead, will it cause a virtual lock out from all its airports?

Does that give all the user airlines a case for court action against them for loss of revenue?

What a can of worms it could open!

It brings home the fact that one company should not be allowed so much ownership of UK airports. Their employees can hold the country to ransome in one foul swoop.

Your comments please

Coop & Bear

[radar707]

Most of the airlines will have contingency plans for the strike dates, I believe that the london flights of Air India and Emirates will be using Birmingham, BA and Virgin will no doubt have plans in place to use alternate non BAA airports for their longhaul schedule, things will slow up but I imagine that only the lo-co's and domestic operations will suffer

[grundyhead]

I think that Gordon Brown and crew wouldn't let Heathrow and Gatwick close. He would lean on BAA (Ferrovial) to sort it out sharpish. If LHR and LGW shut, so does the UK, right?

We had a similar threat of strike action at Birmingham a couple of years ago for the same reasons. Management couldn't afford to let the airport close and BHX has a mere 10m pax a year. BAA has 143m pax, what do you think???

[TopBunk]

I believe that the london flights of Air India and Emirates will be using Birmingham, BA and Virgin will no doubt have plans in place to use alternate non BAA airports for their longhaul schedule

It is one thing for an airline with 3 or 4 flights a day to up sticks to another airport, it is something totally different for companies like BA and VS. BA have c.120 long haul aircraft with probably 70 movement pairs per day. Give everyone an idea where exactly you think they could move any sizeable part of that operation to?

Then you have to consider the crewing implications re duty hours operating from a different base, hotel requirements for crew and pax, bussing etc etc.

I would suggest that BA (and VS) would just shut down the operation for a day or two. The ramifications of that in itself are substantial and will take about 2-3 weeks to work themselves out of the operation, if past experiences are anything to go by.

[No Country Members]

If LHR and LGW shut, so does the UK, right?

No! But I think you would no doubt be right if you said there would be a lot less air travel to the capital. However isn't STN a BAA airport too?

[A2QFI]

Perhaps I don't see the problem correctly? A bunch of people who are in a final salary pension scheme are striking because the scheme has been closed to new starters ie people who don't yet work for BAA. Messing up the travel plans of a million people won't get the public on their side - a bit like the fuel blocade.

[411A]

Just another reason to avoid UK airlines and airports...
Hello, KLM-AirFrance (AMS/CDG) Lufthansa (FRA) etc..

I personally travel a lot through Europe to/from flying assignments, and I never ever use LHR or LGW nor, for that matter, any UK carrier.

I'm sure I am not alone.

[Woofrey]

When my FS closes, if it does, then I have protection.

So I'm alright Jack !

There are probably a number of issues here, some of them I have sympathy with, others maybe not.

Odd One is right in saying that all was not well in BAA before the takeover, much of it steming from perceived inefficiencies which were being "sorted out" by dynamic new management from process industries, who basically had no idea about how airports run, but were fixated on short term gain. This, of course, was ultimately fulfilled when the company was sold, giving all the shareholders a windfall profit, especially the city institutions who were the majority shareholders. ( Not really renowned for their long term approach are they ? I find it a bit rich when the City of London bleats on about airport infrastructure failings when they were the one's that sold it off ).

Anyway, it turns out that none of this lot really understand the financials around how BAA is regulated, and unfortunately, there isn't a quick buck to be earned - BAA had traditionally been a "slow, steady growth" stock, ( the regulator would rip out any sudden profit gains ), the bedrock of many pension funds. ( Ironic really ).

Now the new team have to find ways to cut costs. The Competition Commision has already suggested that the pension scheme was "uncompetitive" and so, instead of entering negotiations, the owners took this as lever to shut the scheme to new entrants, with something like 3 months notice.

Of course final salary schemes are a rarity these days, and for those with one they are highly prized, and worth holding onto. So BAA stated they had no plans to affect the current scheme for existing members.......initially, ....because 2 weeks ago this was changed to, well, not for 6 years at least, and then, last week well, OK we have no plans to change it, but we'll give you a guarantee for 10 years....... er, where did that lot come from ? Trust them ? it would appear the staff do not.

It's also possible that this is one of those "enough is enough" votes. I read enough on here to know that BAA aren't exactly flavour of the month, however a lot of what they do, and put up with, is imposed upon them, and together with a demanding new owner, who neither understands the financials nor the culture here, this is the first opportunity to have a pop back.

[Avitor]

"Messing up the travel plans of a million people won't get the public on their side - a bit like the fuel blocade"
======================================================
It boils down to a matter of principle, if the unions get their way, who looses out?
Joe Public!
If the union looses out, who gets sh@ on?
Joe Public!
In years gone by, union millitants saw their jobs disappear, the aviation industry cannot do this.
It boils down surely, to how soon can brains overcome the brainless. imho.

[Woofrey]

I agree, bringing the airports to a halt is not a good idea !!

It would seem though that the BAA staff have had enough of the modern day, intransigent, arrogant, bully boys who are running the company.

And this may be one way to get some serious conversations started.

I hope it does and they can find resolution.

[Woofrey]

Perhaps I don't see the problem correctly? A bunch of people who are in a final salary pension scheme are striking because the scheme has been closed to new starters ie people who don't yet work for BAA.

Correct, you don't see the problem correctly.
I think you'll find there's a bit more to it than that. Specifically, the way it has been handled, an announcement, no negotiation, and for members of the current scheme, a guarantee of no changes, initially.......... then, well not for 6 years, then Oh, OK, not for 10 years. None of which was ever mentioned when the original announcement was made.

The management style has changed enormously over the last 3 years, from aviation knowledgable to short term, process driven.

Trust is the problem here.

[Flightman]

Woofrey's spot on.

No matter what you thought of BAA management of the past, they had an aviation background. Now, we're led by people who know how to price sprouts, who ridicule experience, and believe they can employ anyone, as long as there is a process!!



No-one trusts the management, at all. Its a sorry state of affairs.

[Gonzo]

It is that fact that I can't fathom the thought process of how anyone can think it to be a good idea to bring airports to a stand still.

Surely it's a good idea (or the only option left) for the unions to force BAA to the negotiating table.

Or should they just roll over and accept it?

[anotherthing]

Closing the pension scheme is just the start of what could be a very slippery path. Once BAA staff on the new scheme outnumber those on the old one, standby for split pay deals and incentives.

A great management way to divide and conquer.

If the door is opened now, who is to say that the 'protected pension' will be protected? Do you honestly think the governement will pay 100% of it if things go bad. Staff will be given a percentage of its worth.

That's why people are striking.

Coopervane -

you think this will have ramifications? NATS has just had its review of the pension scheme. Although very much in surplus, management are talking about closing it.

A BAA strike will not hold a candle to a NATS one if it comes to it.

The Fuhrer of NATS will be watching this closely, however, British Airways have set a bit of a precedent with regards to climb downs when it comes to mucking about with Ts and Cs

[Joetom]

BA staff accepted that new staff would not be able to join the old pension.
.
Think about two years later BA started the process of watering down the pension for old staff, took em about 18 months, but they watered it down good. 2 Nil to Managerment. they did a fine job of it by all accounts.
.
Good luck to all the BAA staff.

[TheOddOne]

Surely it's a good idea (or the only option left)

Hey, Gonz, any chance of a couple of SVFR through the overhead if you're stuck up your pole and got no traffic? Even better, a bash at the ILS would be most appreciated. SEP of course. Might even be able to accommodate a couple of you in the back.

It's an ill wind...

TheOddOne

[PAXboy]

Flightman

Now, we're led by people who know how to price sprouts, who ridicule experience, and believe they can employ anyone, as long as there is a process!!

Yes indeed. One of the early starters of this was the Thatcher govt who thought that academics could run commercial companies and vice versa. Throughout the 1990s, this theme was enthusiastically taken up any any and all commercial organisations, charities and the Blair govt.

Consequently, Britain now has a very serious proportion of organisations (of all types) that are run by people who did not grow up in them and see only their own narrow view. The other common factor is that, they all trumpet about the customer being the most important part but all customers know that is not true.

I have sympathy for the BAA staff but strike action achieves almost nothing these days.

[Out Of Trim]

So If BAA Staff do strike; say Security and Fire Service is unmanned and the Airports are forced to close for a day. How secure are they going to be when they reopen? There are not enough Police to keep them secure during the strike; hence a massive security search would be needed before you could restart operations.

So perhaps the Government would have to step in to provide additional cover to allow the Airports involved to remain secure and possibly allow some limited service to continue.

I guess the RAF could supply enough Fire Crews and Vehicles to cover that side of things and maybe the Army would be able to supply enough troops to provide security. Although I don't think either the Police or Armed Forces would want to get involved with any of this right now.

Should be interesting!