orbitmic

BA has no particular disregard for its HKG staff. As a company, BA just has complete disregard for its staff full stop and has had for a very long time. Quite frankly, if they could safely fly planes without any cabin crew, run operations without any airport staff, save a few pennies by getting rid of reservation agents, and have self-flown planes, the only staff BA would have would have long been in Waterside. It does not try to be a nice company to work for and have a history of being very cynical when it comes to dealing with the people who are, by any standard, their best asset. In short, they couldn't care less about them.

kaka

callum9999

While I agree with the general sentiment that the letter was poorly written (I'm not one for symbolism though so I don't fully grasp how using nicer language would have made being made redundant more pleasant) and that the amount of notice given is morally wrong (on the assumption they weren't told this was going to be a possibility?), I'm curious what other companies you all use.

The amount of outrage and disgust expressed for what is, in global terms, a relatively minor event seems a bit misplaced. Many popular companies do far, far worse things to their staff. Were you this outraged, for example, when you learnt the people making your iPhone kept committing suicide because of the conditions? I certainly didn't see any crowdfunding to help out their families when that became public knowledge.

I guess this is different because people here have a deep attachment (good or bad!) to BA - it just seems overblown.

Lite

HIDDY

I haven't decided to donate to the fund as I'm not quite sure what the money is to be used for and by whom.

Bullswood

Hi callum9999.

Your opinion is of course as valid as any other but I'm content that you'll find yourself in a minority on FT. A few comments in response if I may:

1) You describe this as a "relatively minor" blooper in the overall scheme of corporate wrongdoing. Sure, but try telling that to a loyal 30 year servant of the company to whom this was their life and perhaps only family income. By your criterion, no disaster befalling an individual or small group should ever register. Yes, any business sometimes has to make hard decisions, but if the reporting is correct, this particular cut appears to have been made in a heartless and unnecessarily mean fashion. BA can well afford the gesture of treating its worldwide staff in a consistent and caring way under such circumstances, rather than penny-pinching behind the excuse of what may be minimal local employment protections. As a result of this behaviour, many of us who have interacted with the affected staff are expressing concern and hopefully in many cases, also giving a bit of financial assistance via the wiki link above to improve the outcome.

2) You ask why we're not supporting fundraising for iPhone victims. Well, this is a BA customer forum where discussion is limited to BA, not Trump, Brexit or even Sulawesi tsunamis. We express our thoughts on those elsewhere. Why do you presume that the FT members showing sympathy for the HKG staff are not also involved in social, political or charity causes outside this narrow forum, or indeed are not involved in ensuring that their own companies or organisations are honourable employers?

3) You say that the reaction on FT has been "overblown", but I'd suggest that you have missed the issue of context. Many of us here are long term users of BA. I for example have been a customer since the days of visiting my expat parents on Comet 4s in the 60's. We have shared BA's journey through the pride of the "World's Favourite" and the lows of financial and operational difficulties, industrial action and IT failures, and in general, have always wished success to an airline which transcends the day to day shortcomings and leadership personalities. There is however, and rightly in my opinion, a widely expressed belief in this forum that under the current watch the company has ceased to be either great or good, and that is sad as I would like my kids to be as proud of BA as I was. I say that as a business owner and investor and mindful of IAG's recent financial success. Walsh and Cruz have achieved much for the shareholders, but for a company to be profitable, robust and respected (which perhaps is what I mean by "great") in the long term, it must surely pay attention to the interests of all its stakeholders. I fear for BA if it doesn't keep staff and customers on-side for when tough times return.

NWIFlyer

A large number of posts have been removed which added nothing to the discussion but were mostly a personal spat. This sort of bickering is a massive turn-off to visitors to FT, and dissuades them from also contributing.

A very broad brush was taken to bring the thread back to normality, so apologies to those who made valid points amongst the disruption which have been removed as a consequence. Please feel free to re-post these as a stand-alone.

/mod

memesweeper

Skimo

The money is to be distributed equally to the 85 crew members who were employed at the now former HKG crew base. It's to help tide them over now that they are abruptly out of a job. The money will be sent to Carol Ng who is head of the HKG ICC union.

kaka

i guess this is like how normally at strikes the workers are funded by the union - except this time round they have nothing to strike on because they dont have anything to work on all of a sudden.

orbitmic

Betteronacamel

Well said Bullswood (#231) - couldn't agree more.

I too have been a BA flyer since the 1960's and as someone living and working in London I too want to be proud of BA and see them do well. It's sad to see that in the 15 years since I joined my current employer we've gone from more or less 100% mandated BA travel (chairman is a Premier) to pretty much using BA in Europe only. Travel has drifted to other carriers, often on cost grounds, but there is a widely held 'dislike' for BA. There seems to a vibe out there that BA just isn't what it used to be, and basically doesn't care, and stories like this (which admittedly is not a talking point in the UK) just chip away at BA 's brand along with all the other stuff mentioned here ad nauseam.

Yes, OK IAG is profitable and you don't become profitable operating a charity. Sometimes tough decisions have to be made. But it is how you make and deliver these decisions which define your company. Sounds as though they may have 'c@x8ed' this up anyway which, if true, also helps define how people feel about you. In your headlong rush to shave cost you cause more damage than good. Here the outcome is likely to be relatively localised ill-will that will doubtless blow over - although I am struggling to see how this helps them in HKG in the long term. Would it really have killed them to, say, have given everyone notice now that they planned to close the base in January? If nothing else it would have given them the time to get the process right! This would have given the local staff the opportunity, maybe, to re-negotiate their terms or come up with alternative plans. At the very least they could have used this time to find alternative employment etc. BA is acting here as though is on the brink of going under, taking harsh radical and painful measures to stave off bankruptcy, backs to the wall and all that.

Some people with long memories might remember the story about Concorde. When it first operated with BA it lost a lot of money and they considered axing the fleet. Some managers went to Lord King with alternative strategies, and he effectively gave them the keys and told them they had a year to turn the operation around. Which they did and Concorde went on to become a great flagship for BA. The current management probably wouldn't have bought Concorde in the first place, but the point here is that short-term or ill thought-out cuts are often a lazy option.

The other thing that gets me about this is that BA loves to play the 'heritage card' when it suits them, but in reality the current management do seem to want to kick sand at that at every opportunity. Perhaps this is what happens when you have a Spaniard reporting to an Irishman.

BOAC used to have a slogan which went 'All around the World, BOAC takes good care of you'. Now people feel more along the lines of '........., BA [expletive deleted] all over you'

brunos

BA sudden closing of its HK base is somewhat shocking (although it was widely expected in HK) and rightly led to emotional posts here.

But it might be useful to treat it in the HK context. The labour market is very flexible and fluid. There is basically no unemployment. A 2.8% jobless rate is below what economists rate as full employment. We are talking here about low-level workers and it is common for such workers to change company with a day notice (or whatever short period their contract require). Conversely companies lay off very flexibly. One does not need months to find a new job, and certainly not in the growing airline industry. The labour culture is just very different from that of "protective" Europe.
In May 2017, Cathay Pacific laid off with immediate effect 190 staff at its HQ without notice. Like in the BA HK case, one suspected that something was coming, but there was no notice for those affected staff.

As HongKonger, I am not shocked by this practice, and I have become accustomed to this culture and see it working well. To me, the big question is what is the ex gratia payment (redundancy package) on top of the legal requirements. CX staff were not unhappy about it and there was no protest or demonstration. Apparently, BA mistake was to be unclear about those ex gratia terms:
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...ffer-hong-kong

Frankly, there is no rational for keeping a HK base. BA is now down to two flights a day That made sense when BA had flights from SIN and HKG continuing to Australia many years ago, but now with two flights? Over the years HK has become very, very expensive and compensation for airline workers reflect that. As opposed to SIngapore, English skills have strongly declined in HK (while mandarin is on the rise) and are getting pretty poor among the kind of people recruited as FA (CX/KA FAs are increasingly less proficient in English). It is easy to find mandarin and cantonese speaking staff in London, and Europe-sourcing is the practice adopted by all European/American airlines. I also understand why BA needs to layoff with "immediate" effect for operational reasons. With a small crew (85) operating two daily flights, an airline can hardly give a six-month notice and see the FAs leaving progressively during the six-month period as they find a new job. Even in Europe, one can simply include the legal notice period as part (on top) of the severance package. That brings back the crucial issue of how large is the ex-gratia package offered by BA. So far we don't know.

Skimo

Well our HKG ICC base are all Hong Kongers and they seem pretty shocked by the way BA have behaved. You say that HK's 'flexible and fluid' (i.e poor worker's rights) labour market works well. But for whom? The minimum wage is incredibly low, ordinary HKers generally have to work very long hours and/or have several jobs. I imagine that situation is a wet dream for some, but people like Carol Ng would probably have a different opinion.

brunos

Do you have access to the ex gratia data offered by BA?