Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:15 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 84):
So, as a matter of fact you confirmed that Thatcher's government footed a bill of 901 M £ for fleet investment at a time when the company was just about to be sold to investors.

Please be good enough to read what you quoted from my earlier post in your Reply 84. The last seven words from your quote are " . . . BUT NOT ANY OF THE DEBT ITSELF." Apparently you have read this as meaning all £901 million of the debt when I clearly said "not any" (of the £901 million). Such very poor comprehension certainly explains why you keep making total erroneous statements of "fact" but have been unable to provide a single source.

Your criticisms of the British government in the lead up to BA privatisation and beyond fly in the face of all the available facts. For example without government approval and support, Virgin Atlantic could not have operated its inaugural service (between LGW and EWR) in June 1984. And without the British government negotiating an amendment to the restrictive UK-USA Bermuda 2 Agreement in 1991, Virgin Atlantic could not have operated from LHR to anywhere in the USA.

Similarly in 1981 BD applied to operate out of LHR for the first time (to EDI and GLA). Their application to the CAA (admittedly a government body) was rejected. So they appealed directly to the Secretary for Trade and Industry, a member of the cabinet of the British government. He over-ruled the CAA and BD entered direct competition with BA for the first time.

As far as I am aware all of this resulted in a higher level of competition at LHR than any other airport in the world. This is because it became the home hub not just of BA but also two other widely recognised international airlines, BD and VS. With the roots of this competitive market all originating between the Thatcher government coming to power in May 1979 and the privatisation of BA in February 1987, protestations about any anti-competitive action by the government of the day look rather silly. For example you say that slots at LHR were only available to airlines operating there before the Thatcher government came to power. Yet it is a fact that BD started to operate in direct competition with BA in 1981. It is also a fact that VS started to operate in direct competition with BA from LHR in 1991.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:21 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 100):
Please be good enough to read what you quoted from my earlier post in your Reply 84. The last seven words from your quote are " . . . BUT NOT ANY OF THE DEBT ITSELF." Apparently you have read this as meaning all £901 million of the debt when I clearly said "not any" (of the £901 million). Such very poor comprehension certainly explains why you keep making total erroneous statements of "fact" but have been unable to provide a single source.

See my post # 84 above. you'll find my argument and my source.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 100):
Your criticisms of the British government in the lead up to BA privatisation and beyond fly in the face of all the available facts.

I didn't criticize the British government. I was just pointing at some practices which were quite alright in 1984-1987 but not later in tyhe case of AF.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 100):
For example without government approval and support, Virgin Atlantic could not have operated its inaugural service (between LGW and EWR) in June 1984.

Did they fly from LHR at that date ? No.
Could they fly from LHR at that date ? No.
Was the slot allocation protected at LHR and only available to airlines present befopre 1977 ? Yes.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 100):
And without the British government negotiating an amendment to the restrictive UK-USA Bermuda 2 Agreement in 1991, Virgin Atlantic could not have operated from LHR to anywhere in the USA.

That, my friend is twisting the facts . In 1991 came the agreement between the USA and the EU on air trafficas the EU commission took the regulation that bilateral agreements between the USA and individual EU countries were void and had to be renegociated, this time for all EU coutries. The distorsion between the mùight of the US and the exposure of each country disappeared about overnight. That , and only that, broke the monopoly at LHR.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 100):
Similarly in 1981 BD applied to operate out of LHR for the first time (to EDI and GLA). Their application to the CAA (admittedly a government body) was rejected. So they appealed directly to the Secretary for Trade and Industry, a member of the cabinet of the British government. He over-ruled the CAA and BD entered direct competition with BA for the first time.

The fact is BA entered an earlier agreement with British Midland whereby BD would relinquish its continental Europe lines in exchange of a greater access to the UK domestic network. To BA Europe, to BD a piece of the internal market. As it happened, that was a bad decision from BA as it opened an entry for BD to LHR... for two Scottish destinations - Gosh ! what a progress ! And whaty an extraordinary competition !

Quoting VV701 (Reply 100):
With the roots of this competitive market all originating between the Thatcher government coming to power in May 1979 and the privatisation of BA in February 1987, protestations about any anti-competitive action by the government of the day look rather silly. For example you say that slots at LHR were only available to airlines operating there before the Thatcher government came to power. Yet it is a fact that BD started to operate in direct competition with BA in 1981. It is also a fact that VS started to operate in direct competition with BA from LHR in 1991.

You said it . Put aside the BD slots to Glasgow and - I think - Edimburg, LHR only opened to other airlines in 1991 :
"From 1977 to 1991 special rules applied to Heathrow, because of overcrowding. An important restriction was also applied. The airlines that were not operating before 1977 at Heathrow Airport were not allowed to fly there. It really decreased the competition among the airlines, and also gave a competitive advantage to British Airways. And also whole-plane charters were banned. Any new domestic services had to be authorized by the Secretary of State for Transport... 1991 was a turnaround. In spring 1991 two ailing US carriers sought to sell their Heathrow routes to stronger rivals that did not have landing rights, and the UK government decided to end the ban on new airlines to accommodate the newcomers.”
The source is :" Privatisation of BA" by Vicky Kaintura.
But there is a lot more behind the cold facts the author is providing... Especially some arm-twisqting from the EU commission.

[Edited 2013-03-04 15:23:34]
Contrail designer
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:06 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 101):
Did tCould they fly from LHR at that date ? No.
ey fly from LHR at that date ? No.
Could they fly from LHR at that date ? No.


Correct. VS could not fly from LHR because the bilateral agreement with the USA signed in 1977 by the previous (Callaghan) government and not by te Thatcher government, restricted operations from LHR to the USA to three named airlines, BA, PA and TW. But as I have already pointed out BD were granted the right to fly in direct competition with BA by the Thatcher government between LHR and both EDI and GLA in 1984 which was, of course, before BA privatisation. Regrettably the Thatcher government could not allow BD to operate in direct competition to BA on European (as opposed to domestic) routes as, at that time and until the start of EU deregulation in 1992, the French and other European governments would not renegotiate their bilateral agreements with the UK. So direct competition between BA and BD on European routes had to wait.

Returning to the VS situation, the demise of PA and the significant financial problems of TW in the very early 90s meant that if an American airline was to operate into LHR, Bermuda 2 had to be renegotiated. So the British government agreed that the treaty should be amended to allow AA and UA to operate between LHR and the nominated US gateway cities provided that VS was also added to the agreement. So by the start of EU deregulation in 1992 the Thatcher and then the Major governments had effectively introduced deregulation and direct competition for BA into the LHR domestic and Nortg American markets. Similar competition in the European market had to wait until pushed throug by the EU starting in 1992.

Contrary to your assertions that

Quoting Pihero (Reply 90):
The British government protected BA for a much longer time : See the slot allocations at LHR (no airline that wasn't prersent before 1977 was allowed to bid.


BD obtained slots to operate their flights to EDI and GLA, the first destinations they served from LHR, in 1984. Contrary to your assertion boldly and very incorrectly preceded by the word "rubbish", both BD and VS, neither of whom had operated a single flight out of LR in 1977, built up substantial slot holdings at LHR. By the start of Summer Season 2009 BD had built their LHR slot holding to 1,091 weekly slots or 11.5 per cent of the total. And today VS are the third largest operator at LHR (behind BA and LH) with 308 slots. So your assertion was way off the mark.

My source for the slot statistics above is the Airport Coordination Ltd web site.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:45 pm

Please stop twisting the argument :
The argument was BA had been protected from any meaningful competition until 1991 when the EU took over renegociations of all the individual air agreements made with the US.
Prove me wrong, because so far, you just confirmed my so-called "assertion".

IIRC, the slots BD was allocated were in fact in exchange of flights they operated to continental Europe, to AMS and FRA, from Birmingham, for rights to fly from Liverpool to " London Heathrow Airport, Belfast, Dublin, Jersey, the Isle of Man and Glasgow." ( source is Wiki ). That is the event that put BD's foot into LHR. The extension of the LHR Liverpool was a logical development ( and part of the legal argument BD introduced to the Secretary of Transport ). It wasn't a simple gift to please the BD CEO's pretty eyes.

That both BD and VS built up meaningful operations out of Heathrow after 1991 has to do with simple applications of the slot allocation rules which are now still in effect, grandfathers right included, is not in question. I just make the remark that you insistently ignore that the Bermuda 2 agreement cancellation was an EU feat. Not a simple renegociation done by the UK government, suddenly realising the virtues of fair competition.

To sum up , I just repost the questions I asked in # 101 :

"Did they ( VS and BD ) fly from LHR at that date (1984 ) ? No.
Could they fly from LHR at that date ? No.
Was the slot allocation protected at LHR and only available to airlines present befopre 1977 ? Yes
}"

to which you agreed with me.
So where is the problem ?
Contrail designer
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:48 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 103):
Please stop twisting the argument :
Quoting Pihero (Reply 103):
"Did they ( VS and BD ) fly from LHR at that date (1984 ) ? No.
Could they fly from LHR at that date ? No.
Was the slot allocation protected at LHR and only available to airlines present before 1977 ? Yes }"

I did get this wrong. The BD flights in direct competition with BA between LHR and EDI and GLA had actually been in operation for around three years before what I previously stated. They reportedly started in 1981:

"In 1981, an application to fly between Heathrow, Glasgow and Edinburgh was denied by the Civil Aviation Authority. The ruling was overturned after an appeal was lodged with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. With the introduction of these services, BMA and BA were now in direct competition."

See here:

http://budgetairlinewatch.com/?page_id=158

I have already explained why VS had to start their trans-Atlantic operations from LGW. They continued to operate only from there in indirect competition with BA until the demise of PA together with TW's problems gave the British government the opportunity to amend Bermuda 2 in 1991. At that point VS, AA and UA replaced PA and TW on flights between LHR and the USA and VS operated in direct, side-by-side competition with BA.

So did BD fly out of LHR from 1981? YES.

Were BD well established in operating in direct competition on domestic flights with BA out of LHR by 1984? YES.

Did the British government try to stop this to protect BA? No, they authorised it by actually over-ruling the UK CAA.

Did the British government authorise VS to operate across the North Atlantic from LGW in indirect competition with BA from 22 June 1984? YES

Could the British government have authorised VS to fly to the USA from LHR at that time? NO. VS could not have obtained landing rights in the USA because of the restrictive bilateral air services agreement of 1977.

Did the British government renegotiate the bilateral air services agreement between the UK and the USA at the earliest opportunity thus allowing VS to compete directly with BA on the North Atlantic as soon as was possible after the May 1979 election? YES . Effectively they said to the American negotiators "add VS to the list of authorised opporators and you can also add any two American airlines of your choice".

Was VS flying in direct competition with BA from LHR before there was any liberalisation of operations between EU member states? YES.

Had BD been flying domestically out of LHR in direct competition with BA for more than a decade when EU deregulation started in 1992? YES.

Was slot allocation at LHR limited to pre-1977 LHR operators during the run up to BA privatisation? How could it be when BD had no LHR operations in 1977 and launched LHR-EDI and LHR-GLA flights in 1991?
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:20 pm

your argumentatioin is akin to rerpeating a mantra
If the BA- BD accord of 1981 allowing BD to orerate a LPL-LHR service in exchange for lines to AMS and FRA a sign of competition, you and I have a serious problem of vocabulary.
That BD got a few slots later thanks to a Secretary of transports ruling is IMVHO at last adding a bit of fairness in treatment of "national" airlines. And I never questioned that fact, just saying : such a competition ! How many slots , 40 ? 50 a week compared to the 20,000 slots or so BA did own ?
So, before 1991 BA had the lion share of the international traffic of the UK. No need to dsicuss it, it was a fact of life. Of course, you could claim "there was an "indirect competition between BA and VS... so tell me, is there really a possible comparison between an LHR-JFK and an LGW-EWR ?.. and I don't even delve into frequencies ( I don't know them ).

Quoting VV701 (Reply 104):
Was slot allocation at LHR limited to pre-1977 LHR operators during the run up to BA privatisation? How could it be when BD had no LHR operations in 1977 and launched LHR-EDI and LHR-GLA flights in 1991?

So, I assume the answer is "Yes".
There is no point in going further in circles.
You have the floor.
Contrail designer
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:47 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 105):
How many slots , 40 ? 50 a week compared to the 20,000 slots or so BA did own ?


20,000 BA LHR weekly slots? What is your source? Or is this a number plucked out of the air with no basis in fact?

Back in Winter 2003 the total number of weekly LHR slots operated by ALL airlines was 8,971. Of these 3,576 were operated by BA and 1,145 by BD. These numbers can be verified on page 5 of the Winter 2003 report on the web site of the LHR slot coordinator here:

http://www.acl-uk.org/reportsStatistics.aspx?id=98&subjectId=33

On page 3 of the Winter 2012 report you will see that with improvements to ATC the number of available weekly LHR slots has grown to 9,296. So if we assume that back in the 80s BA had half the available slots (which I am pretty sure it did not as the 2003 report shows it then had only 41.9 per cent), the indicative total number of LHR slots based on your assertion of 20,000 BA slots would have been 40,000+. For this to have been physically possible LHR would have had to have nine runways all usable simultaneously assuming ATC was as efficient then as it is today. Be assured that then as now LHR only had two and not nine simultaneously operable runways.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:39 pm

OK,Sorry ! one zero too many. I typed too quick from a French keyboard.

Nonetheless, I went searching for some history of BA v VS and finally stumbled on a judgement by a US appelate court on one of the many lawsuits between the two.

A small part of the judgement gives some titillating glimpses on the "competition " :

". When it began operations, Virgin offered only a single daily flight between London's Gatwick Airport (Gatwick) and Newark Airport in New Jersey. The United Kingdom's Traffic Distribution Rules then in effect limited Virgin to operating flights out of Gatwick, because only carriers operating out of Heathrow as of the rules' 1977 effective date could continue to do so. British Airways was one such carrier. The restrictions were imposed because Heathrow was congested and the [*260] British government wished to promote the development of other London airports, such as Gatwick.

...Heathrow is considered superior to Gatwick because it has two runways and a large terminal, while Gatwick has one runway and more limited gate facilities. Heathrow is also located near a number of major corporate offices that generate demand for international travel, while fewer corporate offices surround Gatwick and local ground transportation is less developed. Further, since Heathrow is perceived as the premier airport in Europe, it is preferred by national flag carriers of other countries, resulting in more connecting traffic to the benefit of local hub carriers. Gatwick, on the other hand, serves a large proportion of charter flights, which provide fewer connecting passengers.
"

I think that the subject of the "competition" are very well laid out by the tribunal, don't you ? I especially love the comparative situations on both airport and the advantage of Heathrow - which no sane mind would challenge.
Reminds me of a race when one of the athletes carries an 80 lbs weight on his shoulder !

"...By 1991, seven years after its founding, Virgin had added five new routes out of Gatwick. Since Virgin wanted to operate from Heathrow, it lobbied for access and ultimately the Traffic Distribution Rules were abolished, freeing up a limited number of slots at Heathrow. Virgin promptly transferred three routes from Gatwick: New York (JFK); Tokyo; and Los Angeles. In making this change, it gave up peak operating times at Gatwick for less attractive times at Heathrow. Even though it has gained access to the desired airport, Richard Branson acknowledges Virgin can never replicate British Airways' network due to Heathrow's limited space and the method used for assigning slots."

(follows a description on slot allocation mechanisms ...)

"...At the close of discovery in July 1997, British Airways held the largest number of Heathrow slots for the 1996-97 operating year -- 161,100 -- amounting to 39 percent of those available and totaling nearly three times as many slots as the second-largest holder, British Midland, with 56,500. British Airways operated 19 monopoly routes out of Heathrow, 45 duopoly routes, competed with two other airlines on 19 routes, and competed with three or more airlines on [**8] its remaining 11 routes. "

Not to compare a long haul slot with a short haul one. In terms od ASK, it is peanuts.

"...British Airways considers its United States-United Kingdom routes the most profitable and views Virgin as a "cherry-picker" seeking to take business from those routes. Richard Branson has in fact said that "Virgin Atlantic flies only on intensely competitive routes." By July 1997 Virgin held 6,300 slots at Heathrow -- about two percent of those available -- from which it operated six transatlantic routes, while it flew another three transatlantic routes from Gatwick."

Another comment bon "fair competition", which I do not dispute as, after all VS was the newcomer. But to say, as you do that all was hunky-dory was stretching the truth a little bit.
(Stresses are of course, mine)

The file can be found here

[Edited 2013-03-06 10:41:13]
Contrail designer
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:55 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 107):


Clearly when you say "But to say, as you do that all was hunky-dory was stretching the truth a little bit" you were, to coin a phrase, "stretching the truth a little bit".

Note for example the word "restrictive" in

Quoting VV701 (Reply 100):
the restrictive UK-USA Bermuda 2 Agreement


and

Quoting VV701 (Reply 104):
the restrictive bilateral air services agreement of 1977


Please be assured that when I say something is "restrictive" I am not saying something is "hunky-dory". Accusing me of saying "hunky-dory" when I said no such thing and when I actually used the word "restrictive" is about as far away from the truth as you can get.

Nevertheless thanks for sharing your source. It confirms much of what I said once you accept the fact that the Thatcher government was elected in May 1979. By that time the restrictive - repeat RESTRICTIVE - Bermuda 2 Agreement had been in force for nearly 14 months. Further the new (Thatcher) )government's aviation policy including their intention to privatise BA was not announced until July 1979. What your source describes as "the United Kingdom's Traffic Distribution Rules" by which it means the bilateral air services agreement between the UK and the USA known as "Bermuda 2" was signed by the British Callaghan government and the American Carter Administration in 1977. See paragraph 9 here:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...00/cmselect/cmenvtra/532/53206.htm

Where your source is mistaken is in saying that what it calls "the United Kingdom's Traffic Distribution Rules" ended in 1991. They did not. They ended on 30 March 2008 when the EU-US Open Skies Agreement superseded the Bermuda 2 Agreement.

What happened in 1991 I have previously explained and is detailed in paragraph 12 of the above link that reads:

"12. The most significant amendment of Bermuda II was prompted by the demise of Pan Am and TWA in 1991. The renegotiation of Bermuda II that followed led to an agreement which permitted American Airlines and United Airlines to operate instead from Heathrow. In return a second British carrier, Virgin Atlantic, was permitted to operate trans-Atlantic routes from Heathrow alongside British Airways."

Other airlines were not permitted to operate between LHR and the USA until the EU-US Open Skies agreement came into force. So on 30 March 2008 CO, DL, NW and US all moved the majority of their USA-LON flights from LGW to LHR. The fact that they were able to obtain slots for these flights is also indicative that, if the will exists, obtaining LHR slots is not so difficult as some like to claim. This is confirmed by the way that BA grew its LHR slot holding from 3,602 weekly slots at the start of the Summer 2003 Season to 4,198 at the start of the Summer 2012 Season (which was before they merged BD into their operation on 20 April 2012). With VS operating a total of only 310 slots this growth of 596 slots is the equivalent of adding almost two whole VS operations to BA's slot portfolio. You can check out all of these numbers in the appropriate reports here (although the 2003 data will be found in the 2004 report):

http://www.acl-uk.org/reportsStatistics.aspx?id=98&subjectId=33

So I will summarise the position:

The restrictive Bermuda 2 agreement was signed in 1977 and came into force in 1978.

This agreement was nothing to do with the Thatcher government elected in May 1979 or their civil aviation policy announced in July 1977 except that it was the bilateral air services agreement between the UK and the USA that had only come into force less than 14 months before Thatcher was elected. So it cannot be accurately described as having been designed to protect BA from competition in te pre- and post-privatisation periods.

In 1981 the Thatcher government over-ruled the UK CAA and granted BD rights to operate between LHR and both EDI and GLA, the first time any British airline had been allowed to compete directly against either BA or its predecessors, BEA and BOAC out of LHR.

In 1984 te newly formed VS was granted rights by the Thatcher government to indirectly compete against BA between LON and NYC. This was the first time any British airline had been granted the right to fly between LON and an international destination

In 1987 BA was privatised

In 1991 VS was added to the three airlines allowed to operate between LHR and the USA.

In 1992 te EU adopted responsibility for European Civil Aviation Policy and te process of European deregulation commenced.

In 2008 te EU-USA Open Skies agreement superseded the restrictive Bermuda 2 agreement and CO, DL, NW and US were allowed to move their flights from LGW to LHR and compete directly with AA, BA, UA and VS.

It is therefore my argument thart far from restricting competition with BA in front of privatisation as you claimed it was the Thatcher government that first introduced both direct sort-haul and indirect long-haul competition aganist BA (both prior to privatisation) and that the successor Major government first introduced direct long-aul competition against BA soon after privatisation.
 
charliecossie
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 5:17 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:01 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 108):
In 1984 te newly formed VS was granted rights by the Thatcher government to indirectly compete against BA between LON and NYC. This was the first time any British airline had been granted the right to fly between LON and an international destination

What were BCal playing at, then?  
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:20 pm

Thius is ludicrous :
Everything you say is about semantics :
-LON instead of LGW, which any sane mind would not compare with LHR : proof is VS accepting less favourable times for LHR slots in exchange for LGW ones ( which I cited in a previous post )
To me, a competition is about fairness : "indirect" competition is about loading one or more of the competitors with some extra weight / restrictions / limitations.
-Forgertting, very conveniently to mention BCal shows your argumenting techniques.
-Apart from that, I won't discuss British politics, so you're well entitled to your opinion. That's only one amongst many.
Btw, you also forgot the leftover slots to NRT BA had to abandon in favour of VS, which caused Mr King to cancel his payments to the Conservative party for a felt "betrayal", which implied he was well aware of some protection from a conservative government, prior to 1992.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 108):
both direct sort-haul and indirect long-haul competition aganist BA (both prior to privatisation)

We've talked about that : British Midlands abandonned flights to big European gateways (AMS and FRA ) in exchange for ONE LPL-LHR and a few lines to Scotland: A very big deal indeed.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 108):
The fact that they were able to obtain slots for these flights is also indicative that, if the will exists, obtaining LHR slots is not so difficult as some like to claim

Agreed. But why did it take so long to open LHR slots to newcomers ? Are you implying that the "prior to 1977 " super grandfathers' right was just a load of bull ? Seems certainly so.
Contrail designer
 
1400mph
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:29 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:27 am

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94ef4c7e-8...a0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2NDDsfGiC

This is a bit worrying.

I don't know about all this.

The Spanish Governement aren't going to let IB possibly go bust no matter how much money the airline is losing or how inefficient it currently is. Understandably they are concerned about the impact on the image of the country and its economy.

I don't care how they do it but I think BA should give up on this one.
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:20 am

The Spanish Government, or a misguided member of it, can grand stand and drum beat all he wants in the interest of garnering public support.

However, he and everyone else knows that whilst Iberia is a public traded company, the Government is effectively impotent in becoming involved, whether they want to or not.

What he has said though is going to give the unions false hope that the Government both supports their position and will jump in to save the company from the evil IAG, should it be necessary.

I wonder what the next turn will be; place IB on the market and focus on the purchase and future development of Vueling...?

I still see a real possibility of IAG comprising of BA, Vueling and a stake in LATAM.

Sell Iberia back to the Government; let them cure the sick patient.

Rgds

[Edited 2013-03-11 02:01:16]
Flying around India
 
1400mph
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:29 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:28 am

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 112):

IB's employees will latch onto this like a dog with a bone and as far as they are concerned the dye has been cast.

The level of bad feeling however misguided is disturbing and I for one don't like it.
 
LHRFlyer
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:50 pm

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:44 am

Bloomberg is claiming IAG has accepted the Spanish mediator's proposals:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...posal-in-iberia-labor-dispute.html
 
1400mph
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:29 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:04 am

Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 114):
Bloomberg is claiming IAG has accepted the Spanish mediator's proposals:

What are they and will they be enough to stem the losses ?

(the share price is up today and has held up throughout....)

[Edited 2013-03-11 02:05:42]

[Edited 2013-03-11 02:25:25]
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3542
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:15 am

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 111):
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94ef4c7e-8...a0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2NDDsfGiC

This is a bit worrying.

I don't know about all this.

The Spanish Governement aren't going to let IB possibly go bust no matter how much money the airline is losing or how inefficient it currently is. Understandably they are concerned about the impact on the image of the country and its economy.

I don't care how they do it but I think BA should give up on this one.

If the Spanish Govt wish to interfere, they will need to put their hands into their pockets and pay for the inefficiencies. Two problems however, firstly their pockets are completely empty, and secondly EU rules don't allow them to subsidise airlines.

Conclusion - its all hot air.
 
1400mph
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:29 am

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:32 am

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 116):
Conclusion - its all hot air.

Maybe but how far are the staff prepared to go and what further losses will be incurred by more damaging strikes ?

Will relations between IB staff and the British parts of their management be damaged irrevocably creating a long standing unproductive grudge ?

After years of tittle-tattle with VS....... etc etc

[Edited 2013-03-11 02:33:50]
 
LHRFlyer
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:50 pm

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:39 am

I don't know the exact detail of the arbitrator's decision but it is still a very significant number of job losses.

The unions have to accept the proposals but, assuming they do, IAG has an agreed settlement that gives certainty rather than pursuing another option on its own that carries huge uncertainty that could drag on for months.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: BA/IB - A Marriage Made In Hell.

Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:06 pm

Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 114):
Bloomberg is claiming IAG has accepted the Spanish mediator's proposals

And the unions have agreed "in principle" but will announce their final decision wednesday.

3,141 employees fired (versus 3,807 proposed by IAG), of which 2,256 ground staff, 627 cabin crew and 258 pilots, in the period 2013-15. Those who remain will have to accept a salary reduction of 14% (flight&cabin crew) or 7% (ground staff). No profit sharing and freezing of other benefits. One more month to negotiate productivity improvements (basically more flight hours), if no agreement reached then a further 4% salary reduction occurs automatically. Cancellation of all remaining strikes. Maintenance and handling services can remain "if a competitive cost base is achieved".

Links in Spanish:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2013/03/06/economia/1362588086.html

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2013/03/10/economia/1362942660.html

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2013/03/11/economia/1362988448.html

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos