yes, because it’s a once in a hundred year world pandemic. People don’t want to get sick and they don’t want their relatives to die. No one wants to fly anywhere and there is no where in the world for them to go. This situation is not going to change until the health crisis is resolved so please move aside for those who actually understand public health.

Interestingly enough there is growing evidence, albeit anecdotal, that the opposite is the case. When epidemiologists and others in healthcare have been asked to advise they have too often said "well you could do x, but the economic cost would be excessive". They have effectively given economic advice which they are not trained to do, and should have been left to the economists so the politicians received a balanced set of opinions. This really is a failure of politicians because in a court of law a judge would tell the medical expert to shut up and restrict opinion to his area of expertise.

We know that for several years epidemiologists have been saying DONT lockdown early and DONT close the borders. Indeed in New Zealand it was the industrialists NOT the healthcare professionals who demanded the politicians locked down and closed early. And in the UK it was only one epidemiologist who effectively forced the lockdown against the mass of 'scientists' who wanted to wait.

The result is clear to see. Those that closed borders and locked down early have eliminated the virus and the economy can recover (albeit not aviation outside the bubble). Those that did too little too late will have ongoing economic disaster and the effect to aviation is far far worse. So blame the epidemiologists and the public health 'experts' but the wrong advice was to prevaricate, not to do too much.

Yes, because cutting global CO2 emissions by less than 0.1% is really going to save the planet. Come on, you could ground every single aircraft flying and it would still only cut global CO2 by about 3%.

For the near future CO2 emissions are not really near the top of the priority list.

They are very much near the top of a priority list. Look at the proposed restrictions being put on the Air France and KLM loan agreements from their respective country.

Time to put part time work for all pilots and cabin crew in return for job protection formally on the table ? Lufthansa have. At least then all would see how genuine BA protestations are.

This is naked self-interest from a government which owns the SNCF railway and it's high speed TGVs, which whatever their attributes have lost a lot of money for the government, which in the normal way has been just written off. The overmanning and regular strikes leading to much of the loss will be recognised as having a parallel with Air France. SNCF will surely have seized their chance with the government.

Although a TGV train may run from Paris to Nice (by no means all the way on special fast lines) the service is complementary rather than a direct equal. The air services start from notably different places that just happen to be called "Paris", though are well away from it, and are generally cheaper. They don't have all that lengthy infrastructure expenditure to recover, the air is free, and parking at the airport is far easier than in central Paris. And unlike Orly I certainly wouldn't send any woman employee business traveller to go through Gare de Lyon late in the evening. Though it's not quite as bad as Gare du Nord :(

Watch out for these self-centred arguments coming to the UK.

Or understand what panic can do to the world economy!

The effects of the cure now getting worse than the disease IMO. Cancer diagnosis down 70%, possible causal deaths of this, 60,000.
Calls to domestic abuse helplines up 49%, domestic murders increased 3 fold.
Prof Nutjob Ferguson predicted 200 million deaths from bird flu in 2005, there were a few hundred only, worldwide. Oh yes our leading SAGE boffin!

A&E depts quieter than ever because people too afraid to get treatment in case they catch something which maybe no worse than flu. Flu, that we don’t even routinely test for, or attribute as possible cause of death!

Fiasco 🤬

There will be lots of finger pointing when all of this is over. There will be the usual public inquiry, (with lawyers making lots of money of course) but as is usual in public life, "lessons will be learned". Nobody will end up accountable and dangling by their neck at the end of a rope. The so called "experts" who are all so knowledgeable that they rarely agree with each other will quietly slink back to their safe jobs in academic institutions. The government will align behind Boris, who will do his best bluff and bluster act of "piffle....balderdash....quod erat demonstrandum.... phwaaaahhhh!!"
The mantra will be that they all "did their best" under the circumstances. The fact it wasn't good enough won't matter, it never does for any of the "institutional ilk". Not one of them will lose their livelihood.

Private Jet: Summed up perfectly! My father always wanted me to be a lawyer!

Agree with a lot of your post apart from that..

I think many of the scientists contributing to SAGE or contributing advice by other means are already starting to sense that they will be the ones held to blame (a.k.a. "thrown under the bus") if there ever is an investigation into all this.

The politicians get out will be "I was only obeying the scientists' advice"

Are IAG teeing up Vueling to operate the LGW slots?

No he didn't! I presume you are just taking that from the spectator 'list of questions that he should be asked', but it doesn't hold up to even a passing examination. If you find the comments that are referred to, you can see that they were made in response to a question about a hypothetical scenario proposed by the WHO under which H5N1 mutated to allow efficient human to human transmission, and was very clearly a back-of the envelope comparison to Spanish flu rather than a scientific 'prediction'. A politician would never make the mistake of giving a direct answer to a question like that! Can you blame them when people are so uncritical of 'facts' that they read in the news?

Not according to Mahoney in either of the Teams Meetings. However his lips were moving..

So, am I right in thinking that the uk govt £300m was in the iag piggy bang before señor sent out the email where he said there was no government money, as an excuse to make cuts?

Wrong thread but I'll follow the crowed...

I come from the future. Most of us have eventually caught COVID-19. For me and most people I know, it was as bad as the worst case of flu I ever had but I survived. We destroyed our economies, and faith in politics, science and medicine. Oh and the third world eventually caught up with death rates from Western countries. No scrap that, they smashed all other records. We finally accepted immunity was the only cure and losing 5% of (mainly over 60s) was worth it after all.

All the best

Senor Cruz: “It is now clear that we will not get back to 2019 flying until 2023 at the earliest”

It’s clear, is it? Could I have Fridays Euromillions winning numbers whilst you have your crystal ball available, Alex? The cold, hard truth is you don’t have the foggiest right now and it’s all guesswork. Just look how quickly the London Underground bounced back after 7/7 despite the numerous predictions I remember hearing at the time that hardly anyone would use it anymore.

Exactly what I thought! Was gonna ask him if I could borrow his crystal ball for a while. Also curious that he states they are looking at early fleet retirements when I could swear someone told us we are keeping all fleets just a few days ago 🤔

haha !! That made me laugh !! Not at the post , the first part

for those who missed it

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/briti...072328319.html

"Professor" Ferguson has caused more damage than Andrew Wakefield did and continues to do with his completely discredited MMR/ autism study. Wakefield was struck off by the GMC. I assume Ferguson is not similarly regulated by a professional body, but at the very least he should be removed from his post by Imperial.

Sadly, though I hope he isn't, he's probably right.

£300 million from the government already in the bank! They kept that very quiet

I suppose the quote from Benjamin Disraeli sums it up best "I am prepared for the worst, but hope for the best."

You would assume the management team has access to information that isn't publicly available and it's not rosy.

Nostradamus come back to life has he? Mystic Meg?

Seriously though the more you get to know these people the more you realise they’re just as clueless as the rest of us. Nobody has the faintest idea what the timescale on recovery is going to be but it sure gives them ammunition for an attack on Ts and Cs if they paint the direst picture possible.

Spot on
 

Spot on and this is the main reason why top Managers should not play with people's lives without credible data during a crisis of this magnitude. The government wants to avoid at all costs mass redundancies and this is why Willie Walsh must explain in detail why BA keeps ignoring the Government"s approach whilst simultaneously taking advantage of Government funds. Obviously something doesn't sound right. The main issue is around the fact that Covid19 seems a great opportunity to force a massive restructure of BA obtained through mass dismissal of the entire workforce during the biggest crisis in Aviation history. Something the Government will try to avoid at all costs. It will set up a very dangerous precedent if successful, in a sector already dominated by a "race to the bottom". If BA can do it many others will follow across all sectors of the economy.
What a better opportunity to increase future profits by changing all contracts in the middle of this panic and reduce salaries + T&Cs?
The entire UK workforce should be united in keeping decent working conditions across all sectors of the economy especially now.
Let's not forget that only a few years back Willie Walsh strongly reiterated that a high number of BA contracts were not sustainable and BA's survival was at risk, the strikes were successful and WW was proven wrong due to the huge profits reported by BA since then, much larger profits than the other IAG airlines.
It is clearly not about survival at this stage but it seems another move "to increase personal bonuses if targets are met".
It is a highly complex battle however forcing your entire workforce to sign new contracts during this crisis is an act of war against your workforce. The consequences on staff morale and engagement will be catastrophic whatever the final outcome. Massive morale & trust damage is already done and I do not think such a massive betrayal from the highest ranks of BA can be resolved by BA and the Unions alone. This act of war is much bigger than anything seen before so either BA will win or the existing Management will have to be replaced. It might even end up with the Government retaking (partial) control of BA (for as long as necessary) as already happening in other countries.
It is an act of war and trust has been fully and permanently demolished in between this BA top management & the entire BA workforce.
They should have announced the possibility of redundancies in the future and nothing else (same as other airlines).
The act of war is the mass dismissals and unilaterally imposed re-employment on new contracts on much lower T&Cs and salaries. This is the essence of this cruel act of war.
Obviously the workforce must defend and respond accordingly on behalf of all UK (and beyond) salaried workers.

The UK workforce are being treated very differently to the other IAG carriers. Aer Lingus are trying to achieve cuts through voluntary redundancy on bespoke packages. Have a look at these, but not sure if you'll keep your breakfast down:
https://www.independent.ie/business/...-39155731.html
https://www.thejournal.ie/aer-lingus...88981-May2020/
So, if redundancies have to be made, then while IAG have sent off for another airline for a billion, perhaps they could treat their UK workforce with more respect, just like they do at home. There's a Telegraph article out this morning, and the comments section makes for interesting reading, especially a comment by Merrill Berthrong.
Personally, a lot of this is out of our control, but I think it's a very good idea to get on all of the comments sections in online news regarding this matter, to get the truth about Walsh/Cruz out there. Every voice counts, and one mind of the general public changed, will become the attitude of their friends. I'm doing one a day as a minimum.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...-return-skies/

Surprised DNATA will want to buy the catering unit given the current CV19 situation. Its also a different proposition to folk getting made redundant at BA.
But, it does seem to show on the ladder of staff care and engagement where BA are.

I agree, it is a different proposition. However, it was a deal struck within IAG with employees. As Aer Lingus, IAG engage in a friendly and generous manner. BA staff are treated like the enemy. When a group are acquiring another airline for a billion, they shouldn't need to treat one section of staff so shabbily to fund it. I suspect that a lot of slots will be quietly pushed over to the Spanish arm, with Heathrow and Gatwick grateful for the business. I'll reproduce the comment from the Telegraph article here. There's a lot of underhand business going on here. It's time people wake up.

“Writing in the Daily Mail, Mr Walsh said: “We’re a small island, and this Government looks set to make us even smaller on the world stage. Our leaders bestride the world saying the UK is open for business, but their actions do not match the rhetoric.

“If the Government continues to dither over a new runway, then I’ll move my business elsewhere.

We now have airlines in Dublin and Madrid, and can expand our business there, supporting the strengthening Irish and Spanish economies.

“This is not just fighting talk — we have the practical ability to expand elsewhere. This means Spain and Ireland will get the economic benefits and new jobs from our expansion plans, while the UK government twiddles its thumbs and watches as the world progresses around it.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/...blin-1.2467085

I think that there was a post on here yesterday to the effect that LIFO was discriminatory - against, obviously - recent recruits. Is it not the case that the whole exercise of choosing who to make redundant is a discriminatory process ? Therefore, whoever is chosen could claim that he has suffered from discrimination on the part of the company. In that case, isn’t LIFO just about the fairest method of choosing ? Or, has the world not gone mad ?

The world has gone mad!

Totally agree. LIFO has always been the standard (which Air NZ commendably stuck to) for the difficult task of selecting redundancies in a business where it is almost impossible to discriminate between employees on performance (we all do the same job and achieve the same results). It is the simplest and probably least bad solution to a horrible problem. But since the introduction of age discrimination (wasn’t that supposed to protect older people?) that clarity has gone and the entire workforce is potentially in the firing line, stress up to 11 all round. Progress?

I have no dog in this fight but am following it as a number of good mates are "Nigels" and galley crew..

"If the Government continues to dither over a new runway, then I’ll move my business elsewhere." If wee Willie Walsh is worried about runway capacity, why is he not expanding Gatwick rather than walking away ? The whiff of bullsh!t is getting stronger by the day.

New IAG CEO will be IB CEO Luis Gallego
 

This is why we must wake up before it will get too late, our lack of action can cause huge damage to the future of the UK aviation sector and especially BA/LHR/LGW etc. Willie Walsh will be replaced by the IB CEO Luis Gallego (in Sep instead of June due to Covid19), can't you see in what direction this will be going? Wake up. I hope that on Monday this issue will also come up. ES in charge of the UK National carrier just before Brexit is completed? No comment.

I personally and very strongly believe that the same cost cutting demanded by Alex Cruz & Co. can be achieved (If really necessary in the future) through a combination of voluntary redundancies, unpaid leave, early retirement, more part time contracts.
If the crisis will get prolonged into 2023 (as predicted by BA/IAG Nostradamus) then less working hours for all would be the best solution to protect jobs. Moving to part time/reduced salaries would be much fairer than ruining thousands of families and individuals in a post Covid 19 market as the present BA plan, unemployment will skyrocket (especially in travel/aviation related roles, at least until the market will recover) and finding an alternative job for those in aviation might be extremely difficult hence I am confident the "part time" option would be the best solution (again, only if necessary which nobody knows for sure at this early stage of the crisis).

What part of less aviation needs less runway capacity does Mr Walsh not understand? He isnt paying for the infrastructure or disruption, at least not unless he uses the extra capacity post 2023 and pays the additional fees. It seems he wants his cake and eat it. So LHR and the taxpayer pays, the local communities are disrupted, just in case. And if aviation volume doesnt come back he just walks away. Call his bluff.

Building the third runway will take many years, so this should not be an argument.
Using the not building the third runway (on what is currently BA headquarters) as an excuse is a bit strange as BA is actually one of the biggest opponents of the third runway, as it opens up Heathrow to more competition. At least half of the extra slots should go to other airlines and most of the slots BA does get should be used for opening up new routes...

I guess the view on what method is discriminatory depends where you are on the BA seniority list. This is why a part time working solution for the duration plus advantageous VER and VR is the fairest for all. Besides, I think it unlikely newbies on PP34 are BAs main target.

i would be very surprised if the current pay structure and pay points exist after this restructure. Simplified 2 stage for cruise pilots/Fo/Capt would save a fortune whatever your seniority so back to LIFO? Who knows but this speculation does fill the vacuum ;)

When BA closed the Manchester hangar and got rid of the based 737 fleet a points system was devised in consultation with local reps and management.
The company wanted to use qualifications such as aircraft type ratings plus disciplinary and sickness/absence as a basis.
The staff side argued that LIFO should also be part of the criteria.
Eventually, the disciplinary and sickness/absence was dropped as it was felt certain individuals would be unfairly discriminated against.
A combination of LIFO and type ratings was used with varying degrees of weight given to different types. In the end the weighting was roughly 50% LIFO and 50% type ratings. This meant that someone with lots of type ratings would have more points than someone with fewer types but lots of service.
It wasn't perfect and in the end 75% of the staff were made redundant but it was the fairest achieved at the time in a post 9-11 world.