BAA strike threat.

[green granite]

"Thousands of workers at British airports including Gatwick and Heathrow are to vote on strike action in the next few weeks"

Full story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7109535.stm

[EagleStar]

Not surprised... I used to work for (B) ritish (A) r**holes (A) ssociation and none of the staff are happy. The continued expansion of the the shopping centres that are LHR & LGW always seems to be put before the needs of staff and airport users. They should start a new slogan for WDF buy and don't fly!

[bbrown1664]

This will affect new hires only not existing staff.

It sounds more like the staff are fed up with having to work Christmas and New year every year because of the stoopid shift patterns they employ.

IMHO, unions should be banned.

[plane silly]

BAA were asked - Will this quarantee the Final Salary Scheme for existing staff?

Answer - No.

Company now claiming fund is in the red, however this is due to them not making any contributions for 8 years!

Add this to the break up we are all expecting, cuts being made in the wrong departments (Plan, Do, Review - They planned it, did it, now they have reviewed it and thought "Oh s***").

Add that to the new Recruitment and Training Centre at STN, which is obviously there to replace the Management Training Centre at Pease Pottage for when LGW is sold off...

Well done to the Board, keep up the denials!

LCY - We welcome you!

[Diedtrying]

Can't speak for any other department but we at the fire service have the best shift pattern. :ok:

[Flintstone]

Ah yes, the water fairies shift pattern

Day 1. Sleep.

Day 2. Pool tournament.

Day 3. Bit of decorating on the side.

Day 4. Sick.

Day 5. Plumbing sideline.

Etc, etc :E

[plane silly]

Flintstone - The safest airports are the ones where the Fire and Rescue have nothing to do! Better than having burning wrecks everywhere just so they are busy.

They train as much as they have to to save your burning trousers. :eek:

Rumour has it the Boss is looking at giving them other departments jobs just to "Keep them busy". God help us and your burning pants...

[the_fish@blueyonder.]

As a passenger who is travelling over the new year period, how concerned should I be about this?

I am due to fly the follwing:

GLA-LTN-27/12
LGW-HAM 28/12
HAM-LTN 04/01 (though this route wouldn't be affected anyway I would imagine)
STN-EDI 05/01

Should I think about switching to the LTN-HAM flight on 27/12 insted?

I can't think of a reasonably priced route from Scotland to London that doesn't involve at least one BAA airport (forget DND-LCY on my budget!). Should I look into the train/bus insted?

I'm Genuinely worried about my plans now. I really don't want to think about cancelling my trip. :(

[MAN777]

fish at blue yonder

Try flying from Manchester with Air Berlin. or HLX

[the_fish@blueyonder.]

Thanks for that, but MAN-HAM-MAN is coming out at over £230 return, which is more than double of what I have already paid for all 4 of the flights I previously listed and that price, unfortunatly, isn't possible for me right now.

I'll just have to hope this strike doesn't go ahead, or get a coach to London and book myself on the LTN-HAM flight as above.

Of course if I do that now and the strike doesn't go ahead it'll have been a waste of money for me, leave it any later and the flight and coach price will rocket. :mad:

[plane silly]

Fishy - Who knows how the ballot will turn out with many thousands of staff in many departments and levels of management involved. We have been here before over pay and we never ended up in the cold standing around a burning oil drum...

Always a first time though, moral has fallen through the floor, even in the departments that don't normally get involved in the politics.

I wish you all the best for the trip.

[the_fish@blueyonder.]

Thank You. I can only hope that they follow the same trend as before, but knowing my luck and because I've been looking forward to this for months it'll probably end up not in my favour. :(

[red_eye_rat]

will all of this coincide with the Virgin strike?

[the_fish@blueyonder.]

Well the strikes will now happen on the 7th, 14th and 17th January, for 24, 24 and 48 hours respectivly, so I am personally unaffected.

I hope these dates will mean the vast majority of Christmas and New Year travellers will go unaffected.

[rubik101]

LONDON (Reuters) - Thousands of workers at seven of Britain's busiest airports have voted to strike in a dispute over pensions, their union said on Friday.

The Unite union said its members will walk out next month in protest at the closure to new employees of the final salary-linked pension scheme of airport operator BAA.

Unite's National Aviation Secretary Brendan Gold said the strike could close all seven airports. "There will be huge disruption," he told a news conference.

Union member will stage three strikes: two 24-hour walkouts starting at 0100 EST on January 7 and January 14 and a further 48-hour strike from 0600 GMT on January 17.

The union's members include fire crews, maintenance workers, clerical staff and security staff.

The strike will affect Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Southampton, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen airports.

BAA, owned by Spain's Ferrovial, said it regretted the action and would do all it could to minimize disruption to passengers.

(Reporting by Peter Griffiths; Editing by David Holmes)

That will mean that Virgin's proposed strike might well get lost in the dust cloud!

Good Luck to you all.

[niknak]

Even the best run pension schemes are finding it hard to accomodate everyone in the present economic environment and very few companies now offer a final salary scheme to new employees.

The BAA's owners and it's Pension Trustees know only too well that there are, with due respect to all the employees within the company, very few jobs within BAA which are so specialised that they can't offer training to new employees.
Consequently they can fill most vacancies by offering a competetive salary and don't need to offer a final salary scheme to new staff.

I can't see what strike action over this particular issue will achieve, other than inconveniencing the customers.

[anotherthing]

Londonmet

I assume from your post that you are not in in a final salary pension scheme?

Only someone who is not would come out with such tosh! The BAA scheme was healthy enough until they were bought out by a company synonymous with cutting costs and looking for a fast buck in profit.

As for the rudeness or otherwise of BAA staff, as SLF, I have never had the type of problem regarding rudeness you seem to think is so prevalant - maybe if you had a better attitude than
Does my head in those chumps! Get back to work
and
Bloody BAA gestapo mini officers


The majority where I fly aren't. - strange that they are always rude where you fly!! It's like saying you have never had a car accident for years but have seen plenty happen around you - don't you think the attitude you give off causes the ill treatment (if it is indeed ill treatment and not the fact that they do not fawn at your feet like you think they should) ?:ugh:

[anotherthing]

So LM,

I'm afraid we crossed posts there as I was editing the one above, however, what will you do when your company decides to close your scheme?

One assumes you do not work for BA.

No, I am not one of the 'Gestapo Corporals' as you so arrogantly put them - I'm an ATCO

[Litebulbs]

londonmet

Thats the spirit, give up what you have today and bring on a less prosperous future.

You give your life to work and in some cases your health. A pension is the least a company can offer for that.

You can make money with money and economic cycles are just that. Pensions are a life long investment and should be protected at all costs. That is what the BAA staff are trying to do.

Closing the scheme to new starters is just the first step in winding a scheme up. That is the fear. Obviously a healthy percentage of BAA employees want to stop this happening.

There is enough money out there for everyone, not just the rich at the top.

[TheOddOne]

I am a former BAA employee, though for the past 25 years, I worked out on the airfield, rather than in the Terminal buildings, so was subject to the same Security indignities as everyone else, thank you very much! (Pleased I no longer have to take my shoes off 10 times a day, just to get to and from my office.)

There were for many years 4 unions representing BAA workers - the T&G for Security etc, lately Amicus for the technical grades and the Fire Service, PCS for clerical and lower/middle management and Prospect for middle managers like me. The 3 latter unions had various names over the years, with the T&G being the more traditional 'militant' body. I belonged to the T&G when I was a Security guard and in the late '70s they were always trying to use our numbers to wield political power, fortunately failing (our local convenor was a self-confessed member of the then Militant Tendency).

However, with having 4 unions to deal with, the British Airports Authority (then after privatisation BAA) could always find a way to 'look after' the groups that could actually close an airport, principally the Airport Fire Service. Loss of technicians for a short while, whilst making difficulties behind the scenes wouldn't result in immediate disruption of services. Loss of those Security staff actually in the T&G, might result in longer queues, but with office worker 'volunteers' bolstering the non-union Security personnel a service could be maintained. Thus staff couldn't be persuaded to vote for strike action, becuse even the more intellectually challenged people could see that they'd be on to a loser.

Now, with the merging of the T&G and Amicus into Unite, Brendan Sewell has in my opinion finally achieved his ambition of being able to actually shut an airport by bringing the Fire Service out - the only body who are solid enough to be able to achieve this. At Glasgow recently, the Fire Service was kept going during a strike by using senior officers from the other airports; this time there won't be enough to go round.

Now, is this a just cause? On the face of it, why should an existing worker be concerned about the terms and conditions of any prospective new employee? Well, actually, there is already a problem between T's & C's for staff who joined the Company after 1997, when they changed for the worse. Attempts to harmonise the pre- and post '97 T's & C's were still stalled when I left.

I think that the strike isn't about protecting members who don't even exist yet, but more about the 'thin end of the wedge' and people generally being very dissatisfied with the present senior management since a major shake-up which actually started well before Ferrovial were even on the horizon. The Spanish consortium have really just inherited this situation but it is also fair to say that they expect a better financial performance than BAAplc were achieving, which was lack-lustre to say the least. Otherwise, why would the BAAplc shareholders be so pleased to get rid of their holdings?

The above is just a personal view from a former employee, not much of an axe to grind really, so long as my pension doesn't go down the tubes!

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[the bald eagle]

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

[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...:rolleyes:
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.:E

[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!!

:mad:

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

[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]

FlightmanNow, 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!

[free at last]

It will never happen, !:):):):)

[TheOddOne]

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?

You're assuming that 100% of Security staff are in Unite and will come out on strike; not so. There will be quite a number of non-union staff who will be subject to disciplinary action if they don't come in to work when rostered to do so and there are also a large number of non-Unite office workers fully trained to do Passenger Search who will be required to carry out this function during thier normal working hours. All the airside access points will be looked after, don't worry about the airfield or departure lounges being 'open' for anyone to wander around in!

The Fire Service is another matter - always been more 'solid' union-wise. In the past, they were in a separate union and the majority view was that their T's & C's were sufficient for them not to take industrial action to secure any improvement. Maybe now they do feel under threat. THEY are the ones whose absence might preclude Public Transport flights, not Security. Incidentally, splitting hairs, but the word 'closing' isn't strictly appropriate. There might well be a number of aircraft movements, positioning and engineering flights for instance, not requiring Fire or Security cover. Doesn't make much difference if you're a passenger on a cancelled flight, I guess!

Incidentally, I don't think that any Army, local authority or RAF fire appliances can meet the requirements for CAT 9 fire cover, which is what would be required at Heathrow and Gatwick. Just maybe the appliances at Brize Norton or Lyneham, but of course they have their own needs. You won't be seeing Green Goddesses on the run at LHR or LGW!

TheOddOne

[Gonzo]

TOO:

Aha, well actually, I'm rostered to work on the morning of the 7th............:E

londonmet:

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.

Roll over and accept it.

Let me get this straight.......You cannot 'fathom the thought process' of someone who doesn't want to 'roll over and accept it'?

[Sir George Cayley]

Most importantly for BAA mis managers is that the shops will remain open:eek:

As usual when two forces like this collide there will only be losers.

Ferrovial had a rush of blood to the head when they decided to buy BAA plc and now that they can see exactly what ir was they bought they are hell bent on recovering the situation by lowering the cost base at any cost.

To the simple everything looks easy.

Bouenos fortunas

Sir George Cayley

[coopervane]

Free at last.....we said a strike wouldn't happen with Virgin Cabin crew and how wrong we were. I guess the government may step in but knowing the lack of forethought Gordon Brown's muppets have, it wouldn't happen until the eleventh hour when everybody's travel plans would have been stuffed.

One thought I have had is if the airports do shut then no one at all would be allowed in due to lack of security staff. From an engineereing point of view, that would leave an awful lot of aircraft without maintainance on their down time. Once the strike was over, the knock on effect would no doubt last for days.

I do hope sense will prevail but we are talking about the BAA here!!

Coop & Bear:rolleyes:

[Out Of Trim]

Incidentally, I don't think that any Army, local authority or RAF fire appliances can meet the requirements for CAT 9 fire cover, which is what would be required at Heathrow and Gatwick.


Crash CAT 9 isn't that hard to cover for a couple of airports.. RAF Brize Norton is Crash CAT 7 and most other RAF Airfields are around Crash CAT 5 so to combine some units would be possible.

I wonder just what percentage of BAA Security staff are Unite members..

[windytoo]

If this is Ferrovial's policy on pensions what the hell is their policy on de-icing going to be?

[Out Of Trim]

If this is Ferrovial's policy on pensions what the hell is their policy on de-icing going to be?


I don't see the connection - BAA don't supply De-icing to airlines. Unless you mean De-icing of the Runway and Manoeuvring areas.

[throw a dyce]

Well if there is no security on the 7th,it could be interesting getting to work.I might have to practice the Steve McQueen :cool: king routine to leap the fence.Can't see us just walking in unchecked.

[ap9dm1]

I sympathise, but it really is a case of "welcome to the real world". Like it or loathe it, the market dictates these sorts of decisions and it's rampant in every industry ... it's only a matter of time.

Bottom line: cost is everything nowadays. And as much as I'd love for EVERYONE to have decent remuneration packages that include the likes of final salary pension schemes, it's just not a reality anymore as costs are squeezed and margins are increased.

IMO, the government(s) have done little to facilitate the industry as a whole - they seem bent on appeasing so called "green" doers to win votes. let me give you an example: in Ireland, I understand a large portion of the green party took the liberty of indulging in a visit to the recent Global talks miles away ... ahem... carbon footprint - I rest my case! And as I understand it, security policies are dictated to airport operators who then have to foot the expensive bills.

Where's the balance here for operators (airports and airlines) when ultimately they have to make a profit. Something has to give. 411A makes a good point, I avoid LHR and LGW for the same reason .. result is ... business away from UK to Europe. And Woofrey also makes an interesting point ... the days of nurtured industry relevant staff making decisions leans to highly (overly) paid businessmen and women in the interests of the shareholder in a lot of cases. These shareholders (I might add), are most of us here with pensions that are held up in companies such as BAA and airlines. If THEY don't perform, we all lose out.

Interesting dilema :bored:

Again, I do sympathise, with BAA and UNITE. Somehow I think, between them both, someone dropped the ball on communication!!!

One word for UNITE - holding me to ramsom won't work.

[Jet II]

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.

Air France? CDG?

I take it then that you dont travel to europe much then 411A? - or did you sleep through the 2 weeks of disruption in France last month? ;)

[411A]

....the 2 weeks of disruption in France last month?

Didn't bother me old boy, went through FRA

As for LHR/LGW...never get my business, nor do UK airlines.
We advise our customers and suppliers likewise.

Besides, on LH, the hosties are much more attentive...:)

[Litebulbs]

ap9dm1

If costs are squeezed to increase margins, then the money is STILL there and going somewhere. That is the point. Someone somewhere will be getting richer at the cost of new BAA employees today and existing employees in a few years.

[BEagle]

411A - I agree with you there!

I normally fly from Birmingham (thankfully non-BAA) with Lufthansa, but a couple of weeks ago I had the misfortune to have to travel from that building site slum called Heathrow. Although still with LH, of course.

It will take years, if not decades to bring Heathrow up to the standard of even a small German airport such as Dusseldorf. The management will have to accept that there is no quick solution - and no quick profit for any shareholders. So the one prime asset which they do have, a loyal and experienced workforce, must not be treated shabbily by some shiny-suited newcomers.

[ZeBedie]

mech assassin - thanks for putting your side of the story. It confirms my belief that no workforce will vote to go on strike without good reason.

GOOD LUCK:ok:

[ap9dm1]

Litebulbs ... money goes on investment, expansion, increased security costs, wages, etc. And it's badly needed when you see the state of some of the airports, the London airports are a disgrace in particular.

No point having a fabulous salary and pension if it costs so much that the company can't keep investing to keep up in the market. It would eventually close with a loss of business and jobs. It simple market rules (as much as it hurts).

Of course, there are a lot fat cats making rediculous sums on the back of it all - that sticks in my throat.

[Woofrey]

I sympathise, but it really is a case of "welcome to the real world".

Is that the real world where millions of people haven't made proper provision for their future through ignorance and/or shortsightedness by ensuring they have an adequate pension fund ?

The real world where the Chancellor of the Exchequer 10 years ago changed the rules for pension funds to their detriment ?

The real world where the MP's who are probably aghast at the impact a strike could have on UK plc, all have final salary index linked pensions ?

Perhaps that's why there is an issue here. Maybe the "real world" just ain't a really good place to be for everyone, and perhaps that's why some think it's worth protecting, or fighting for, what they've got.

pensions that are held up in companies such as BAA
No, there are no pensions held in BAA stock - that stock was sold at a profit when BAA was taken over.

Aside from the pensions issue, what I'm also reading among the comments here is a fundamental misunderstanding on the way BAA is regulated - virtually told how much money it can make by the CAA. It is set a fixed rate of return based on various forecasts, therefore in order to beat that it has to earn more from non regulated sources ( shops ! ), or cut costs, and the regulator keeps an eye on both of these as well to ensure service quality isn't compromised ( hence the service quality rebates the airlines get paid ).

The problem is, a lot of people, including some analysts, city boys and the new owners don't seem ( by their actions ) to comprehend this - there isn't a quick buck to be made here !

The only way the airports have a chance to become more profitable for their owners is when they are deregulated and sold off.

Then you'll be in another world.....

[iflycwl]

So will several airlines be operating through the regional airports over this period such as Cardiff & Birmingham ?

I think the last time there was industrial action Virgin planned to operate some flights ex CWL to the States - does anyone know if this is the plan this time or any ideas on who may take this option ?

[ap9dm1]

Is that the real world where millions of people haven't made proper provision for their future through ignorance and/or shortsightedness by ensuring they have an adequate pension fund ?Yep.

The real world where the Chancellor of the Exchequer 10 years ago changed the rules for pension funds to their detriment ?Unfortunately.

The real world where the MP's who are probably aghast at the impact a strike could have on UK plc, all have final salary index linked pensions ?Disgustingly so.


Perhaps that's why there is an issue here. Maybe the "real world" just ain't a really good place to be for everyone, and perhaps that's why some think it's worth protecting, or fighting for, what they've got.I couldn't agree more ... but be cautious of the consequences. Unions have lost faith with the public defending their rights while affecting those who they need to support them .. the public.

No, there are no pensions held in BAA stock - that stock was sold at a profit when BAA was taken over.Are you sure? BAA is (was) listed on the LSE (I don't know the consequences of the Ferrovial takeover). So pensions and savings will be affected (at least in part) by it's performance.

Now, where do I stand and fight :)

[TheOddOne]

Are you sure? BAA is (was) listed on the LSE (I don't know the consequences of the Ferrovial takeover). So pensions and savings will be affected (at least in part) by it's performance.


Yes, absolutely sure, as a former shareholder.

Ferrovial bought all the shares; none left. Woofrey is quite right.

However, the BAA pension fund IS presently in a reasonably healthy state (i.e. with a quite small 'black hole'). If it were to close to new members, but not be interfered with, then there is a good chance that it could meet its commitments to present members. Remember, as the years roll on, the numbers in the scheme get smaller and smaller, so the pot can afford to shrink.

On the other hand, it'll need to keep going for around another 80 years, assuming a new recruit currently aged 20 lives to be a hundred. I think that the aviation industry will be long gone by then, with the oil situation etc.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

TheOddOne

[MAN777]

No agreement during latest talks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7160901.stm

[iflycwl]

So are these planned strikes going ahead for definate ?

Does anyone know the plans for the airlines ? Will they be using Regional Airports such as BHX, MAN & CWL ?

Who will be operating from other airports ????? This strike will affect so many airlines it will be good to know what continguency plans are in place.

[radeng]

There is still the point that an effective contract was enetered into with existing employees regarding a pension scheme, and there's no guarantee that BAA will honour that contract. While a company can say 'We entered a contract, but now we can say Yah! Boo! Sucks! we didn't intend to honour it anyway so we're changing it', they can't be trusted in anything else, either. So if the unions wish to say 'Screw you! We don't care what happens because the way you've behaved, you are so untrustworthy we could all be out of a job tomorrow, so let's take you down with us', it's somewhat understandable.
I'd rather fly to Paris than have to drag a back on the train, which is what I suspect I'll have to do.....yes, it does affect me directly.

[BlueTui]

Well my airline is asking for volunteers from "other bases" other than LGW/STN/GLA (as well as LGW/STN/GLA) so it is possible that we will be operating some flights from other bases.

[radeng]

Having put up with the crap service from BAA at LHR for too many years,I'd be happy to see the top three levels of LHR 'management' publicly flogged, shot, and then have their organs sold on ebay. But I'm known for my liberal attitude....

[MAN777]

More talks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7165196.stm

[Justanotherpax]

Strike called off. Great news!

Sorry to disappoint all the troublemakers...........

[eurostar builder]

Think everyone knew it wouldnt happen

[Justanotherpax]

Thank you Mr Wise-after-the-event.

[PAXboy]

Think everyone knew it wouldnt happen
Union leaders have called off the first of three planned strikes ...

[Woofrey]

Think everyone knew it wouldnt happen

Perhaps you, or everyone else, could tell us what will happen then ?

Paxboy is right, Union leaders have called off the first of three planned strikes ... they ( unions and BAA ) are talking again on Friday.

[Justanotherpax]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7169738.stm

Good news? Strange how this thread has gone quiet since an apparent agreement was reached...........

[Woofrey]

Good news? Strange how this thread has gone quiet since an apparent agreement was reached...........
That's because there has only been an announcement on the BBC, nothing internal at BAA, so it's apt that you say "apparent agreement".

Anyone know how it was resolved, if it's been resolved ?

[Justanotherpax]

Woolfrey, my comment wasn't apt, it was accurate.

You seem to be clinging on to the hope that it HASN'T been resolved. Are you waiting for the BBC to retract the report?

[Woofrey]

J a pax - not at all, apologies if it came over that way.

'suppose I'm just disappointed that the announcement comes from the media before officially from the company to the staff.

Anyway, it is good news that it has been called off - nothing but damage to the industry would come from a strike.

BAA have now agreed to do what they should have done in the first place - consult.

The pension scheme has been re-opened to new employees, with any future changes to be from 1st May 08. So it looks like a closure may still be on the cards, but now in an agreed manner.

[Justanotherpax]

Woofrey, no apology required, totally understood.

I didn't realise the news was released before BAA staff were informed. That really is bad form, but is the way of the media world these days I guess!

I agree completely, strikes may force the issue, but almost invariably damage the industry along the way. Good to see it's been resolved amicably before it came to that.

If only the Virgin cc dispute could be resolved in the same way!! (no chance!! :ugh:)