ukgooner

What are you talking about? TSB was never state owned.

Raffles

Er, yes it was.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustee_Savings_Bank

ukgooner

er. No it wasnt. The organisation in its early forms may have had a history of heavy government regulation but the actual management was independent of government. Savings banks operated on mutual principles, but had no shareholders either real or through product holding (like building socieities) and is instead governed by a Board of Trustees, appointed to represent the interests of depositors and to ensure that the Bank is managed properly.

Consequently TSB was not owned by the government and the proceeds of the 1986 floatation was retained by the bank so it it was not a privatisation. The 1984 act, far from proving it was state owned, (or 'nationalising it' as you say) actually laid out full incorporation under one unified entity, removing many of the special state regulations under which it operated. Airdrie Savings Bank was the only 'savings back ' that didn't join this new organisation, and remained the only independent trustee savings bank in the UK until it announced its closure in 2017- which again was never government owned.

As reported in Hansard: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...ngs-banks-bill

"The Bill is designed to end the statutory relationship of the TSBs in a special position with Government and Parliament. The Government and Parliament are responsible for resolving the questions of ownership, supervision and taxation involved in the reorganisation, the repeal of earlier legislation, and so on. The TSBs will have the responsibility for carrying out the changes. The Bill and the proposed reorganisation that will follow mark the end of an era. The trustee savings banks will cease to have a unique and an anomalous— in today's world— form of constitution. This Bill will, therefore, be the last in a long line of Bills dealing with the trustee savings banks.

I am glad that the Bill removes many of the restrictions on the TSBs' freedom of action which have constrained their progress. I am sure that the proposals we are putting to Parliament are in the interests not only of the TSBs but of their customers and their employees, and I hope that the proposals will be warmly welcomed. The TSB movement has a long history and a distinguished past. I am convinced that the TSBs have an important future. The Bill will enable them to take advantage of new opportunities, and I commend the legislation to the House."

Raffles

The Government had to pass an act to confirm that it had the legal right to IPO the business - which is similar to what could happen if it chose to sell landing slots which it may or may not own.

There are quite a lot of things that operate in a similar way, institutions which the State acts as if it owns (and in practice does) but which there is no legal paperwork to support.

108912

I went to one of these events just before Christmas and it was downright depressing how deluded some of the senior management are - or perhaps it's how little sway they actually have in getting anything done.

It was almost as if they were caught by surprise that the transatlantic competition is now streets ahead of BA's J class product. People have been talking about it online for years!!

And OK...so they don't have a huge budget for travelling competitors. Ever heard of youtube? Impartial flight reviews? Surely at their finger tips they have access to video and images of seats, menus, soft product. Reviews describing crew and service routines.

DFB_london

So as ever Hiddy so wide of the mark- used to fly a lot of BA and now fly many carriers, of which Ryanair is one. Still use BA long haul where it can't be avoided - and that's still enough to be close to GGL4L.

Certainly now much much less BA short haul in Europe. (Much less). It may not suit a simplified world view that some have, but some of us do not 'never' fly BA again, and equally today's Economist is wide of the mark if it thinks there is no choice out of Heathrow or London. When poor product and service prompt you to look around there's a wealth of alternatives. My spend with BA this year is much much reduced and on a recent multi sector trip I managed to avoid BA (and Iberia) on all but one flight.

so back on topic and not your over simplified view - bad product sees a significant loss of share of my travel spend. Others indicate similar. It does suggest BA cuts become self filling- a loss of s repeat customer and then it gets more dependent on less frequent more price sensitive customers.

So still seems shameful the CEO is either too weak, too socially incapable, or just too uninterested to not bother to interact with either his key customers or to really find out what staff do.

fransknorge

This is a point that you will miss if you do not look at nuances: there are actual competition in London in some ways and when you are looking hard enough, you find some. It will not always be optimum but usually means that you can fly less BA if wanted.
I am certainly feeling this way: BA went from having over 50% to having less 20 % of my travel (in segments) and from around 70% to less than 30% (in miles). I never say I will never fly BA but I do fly them less. One reason is a change of home airport but the other, equally important in my decision (actually more important for long haul flights) are the choices made by the company.
Just one hour ago I changed a BA flight to an IB one due to the new CE catering.
My colleagues all moved to Lufthansa on the FRA-LHR route.

ukgooner

I dont mean to be picky here - its hardly reverent to the matter in hand - but The Government passed an act to confirm that the board of the TSB could legally IPO the business, as there was a lot of controlling legislation limiting Savings Banks activities up to that point. You're going back to a time when Building Societies couldn't offer current accounts (for example). It needed to become a regular Ltd company before IPO, consolidating under one structure, and confirming it as a regular bank, not a trustee savings bank. One change for example was for the company to be called "TSB Bank PLC" (ie not Trustee Savings Bank Bank).

There was no question that the TSBs were government owned, which is what you stated. They were privately formed, and run but heavily regulated like many financial companies of that time. Heavy regulation doesn't really mean the State acts as if it owns it, and luckily this is rarer and rarer as the state has rolled back significantly since the early 80s.

The other big difference, is that the energy for this exercise came from the TSBs themselves that wanted to develop a broader rage of services which is was not able to do, and that the money from the IPO would allow them to provide the underlying capital required. You imply through the original statement that it was like any other government privatisation and driven by government agenda of the time, and it wasn't.

So to bring it back OT - the only parallel might be that HAL could work with the government to pave the way to formalise the ownership and value of slots. It would be hard to prove their value is somehow separate from the airport itself, so I don't see how the government could or would try and create value independently here.

NickB

Again, we get side-tracked into a meaningless discussion about "ownership."
This is entirely irrelevant. A slot is a statutory right to use the facilities at an airport within a defined time period for the purposes of take-off or landing. The legislation provides that this right remains in the hands of the holder provided certain conditions are met and also provides that it can be transferred under certain conditions. Whether one calls that "ownership" is little more than an academic question and changes nothing to the contents of those rights. Nor does it change anything to the fact that the EU (at present) or the UK Parliament (post-Brexit) could completely alter the framework in which slots operate including, for instance, restricting or removing the possibility for the slots to be transferred, which would in effect completely remove the market for slots. They could also, for instance, give greater powers to the slot coordinator to re-allocate existing slots through, for instance, limiting the grand-fathering of slots, which would also have the effect of lowering their market values and severely affect the market. They could, conversely, make the transfer of slots much more simple than at present, which would make slot transactions more straightforward, and perhaps the market more open and transparent than it currently is.

All of that is possible. Is it likely to happen? There is little to suggest at the moment that it will happen. But none of this is changed in any significant way by esoteric disputes about who "owns" slots and what "owning" slots actually means.

ukgooner

Yet over on the LH forum there have been many examples of Germany based LH loyalists moving to BA because of changes LH have made in the past.

These things ebb and flow, and it seems we are all increasingly change resistant. LH have made plenty of adjustments in the name of cost management, and their loyalists have noticed it too. (Hard not too if your based in Dusseldorf and barely have access to LH nowadays). Some have chosen to move; some have stayed loyal. Those who move may well move back.

The fact is there is so much more choice now, and when alternatives open up that are sometimes cheaper, better scheduled, closer to home etc. then why not take advantage? It probably works in BAs favour too of course - even FR loyalists taking BA occasionally because the price was more favourable.

It does get a bit tiresome when people constantly back-comb their behaviour change to some sort of anti-cruz protest, particularly when some of these same people have a long history (on here) of being very critical anyway, long before Cruz came along.

simons1

Of course it's relevant. It's entirely relevant because it is central to whether the government or airport could loosen BA's stranglehold on slots at Heathrow.

That in turn is relevant because if BA needed to compete on the basis of service rather than having slot monopoly then they might get a bit more interested in improving their proposition.

It's also relevant because clearly there is some embedded value for BA. Whether or not you believe airlines own the slots is academic, as they are being purchased and sold this very week and whether the buyer is buying a right, or a slot is largely semantics, as airlines typically don't spend £75m on something unless they believe it is of value to them.

If the markets decided that the slots had no value it would impact significantly on BA's share price. That would be relevant as the airline's ability to fund growth (planes and general improvements) is dependent on a strong share price. Weak share price = forget any improvements.

Ancient Observer

NickB

What is the statute that gives a "slot holder" the "statutory right" that you talk of?

I've never heard of it, and would be interested to read it.

NickB

Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, [1993] OJ L 14/1.

PWOZUK

Sorry fellow FTers - but how can the recent discussion be "on topic". I don't deny it is/might be interesting, but thread drift makes it hard for those of us who scan the thread titles to extract relevant information.

PUCCI GALORE

Once upon a time, a business provided goods and services that the customer wanted at a price that they were prepared to pay. This seems to have been forgotten or treated as rubbish by the donkeys that are called managers. They are not stupid but they are like the people who surround Donald Trump, Yes-Men and Women.

Alex Cruz is Basque and had a Spanish management style. At his level, he does not deal with customers.He is too exalted to do that. What surprises me before he ran Vileing, he was seven years at AA.

I actually feel quite sorry for this crowd of muppets that bear the title Manager. They must dread these bun fights. I note that they are not held upstairs at M&S. They are are essentially powerless to do anything except trot out the same old tripe and pass it off as innovation. They have to listen to you telling them that you can see through the smoke and mirrors and they cannot pass it up the line as it is not what they wish to hear.

It never ceases to surprise me as I have often said why so many of you, clearly dissatisfied have not left for other carriers but who need to remind us so often that you have done. I would have thought that your new choices would occupy you all so much that you'd care less what happened here. Perhaps, maybe, some who say that they have gone haven't, and others
can't as their companies pay for their tickets and they cannot move elsewhere. I don't know, and I'm ceasing to care even though it makes no sense to me.

Thank you all for telling us what went on, depressing reading though it makes.