Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

BA to cut up to 12,000 jobs in "restructuring and redundancy programme"

BA to cut up to 12,000 jobs in "restructuring and redundancy programme"

Old Jun 5, 2020, 5:01 am
  #1306  
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by OhLordy
Yes....I get that...12000 ďselectedĒ and given statutory redundancy...and the remaining 30000? Oh yes...Current contract of employment torn up and new, inferior (and Agent69 please donít sayĒhow do you know it will be inferior? - if it wasnít then whatís the point of doing it?) offered to them.
What if one of the ďluckyĒ ones says - thanks very much but Iím quite happy with my current contract of employment? What does BA do then?
Whilst writing this I am thinking outside of the crew community where clearly there are issues over different fleets...this is about technical, non technical, administration staff et all!
A need for headcount reduction I get very clearly but this blatant attack on T&Cís is just a clear example of a race to the bottom - using this current pandemic as a convenient excuse to do it.
i cannot believe that any person on this site can find this behaviour acceptable in any way, shape and form.
Tbh, all media coverage, all union coverage has all been solely about legacy crew T & Cs, there hasnít been as much of a mention of anyone else feeling or claiming the same. Some groups of employees arenít necessarily as disadvantaged by this as much as legacy crew, such as MF crew who, quite a handful, actually quite like the new proposals! You might not see such views in the media as itís not headline grabbing or paper selling. Secondly you donít see their comments on public forums (mainly internal BA crew Facebook pages) either as I have with my own eyes seen how much borderline ďabuseĒ they have got from other colleagues even for merely saying ďUnions should engageĒ or busting some Len McCluskey BS!
AirbusA350 is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 5:08 am
  #1307  
BOH
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,699
Originally Posted by Littlegirl
What is it with many of you here that you all seem to feel that anyone working in a service industry deserves to have low pay!
How has our society reached this point where I presume intelligent people argue that it is right that certain workers do not deserve a decent living that helps them live in what is the most expensive area in the country?
How is it that society seems to think that a vast swath of the population only deserve to be on low pay now, lower that in previous decades?

It really is bizarre, no one could say that any BA staff are overpaid, whichever contract they are on but constantly we are told here that cabin crew only deserve to be paid lower wages? Why is that then?

BA made 1.92 billion in profits last year while paying itís staff the current wage bill, so why do some of you feel that BA employees, particularly cabin crew, should be earning low wages?

This doesnít only apply to BA, but it seems to be a strange view taken about any service industry job? Often put forward by people on much higher wages.

I donít need any of you to actually answer these questions because I donít really want to hear what you will be saying, I just wanted to point out how very odd the views a lot of you seem to have are, where people earning quite normal wages, in fact on London standards fairly low, are considered overpaid! Quite odd.
Then what the unions need to do is to fight to raise the pay of ALL staff across airlines where they have staff employed under UK law. The problem is that in a competitive market arena (and air travel is fiercely competitive), if one airline has costs of X and another has costs of 2X or 3X then for the same role then something eventually has to give in the airline with the 2X or 3X costs.

However it is not necessarily only down to costs, a company (not just an airline) with higher costs can differentiate itself with a superior product / service offering that people are prepared to pay more for. But that is a huge big "if"....in good times customers will usually pay more for something superior, in tough times they are much less likely to, it more and more becomes about the cost. What BA does have as a huge differentiator is it's fortress at Heathrow which being slot restricted means new entrants and LCCs find it near impossible to gain any sort of presence and this is why BA can (and does) charge much more and this can offset higher staff costs. BA no longer seem to try and differentiate themselves on product any more, accelerated by Alex Cruz and you only need to read this forum to see how many times BA is now compared to an LCC and the "race to the bottom" to cut costs and service standards. Again, this can be done in the good times with a hub fortress and year-on-year pax growth......but now?

But sadly in the current climate alot of this goes out the window when the air market has collapsed (and it has spectacularly). Unfortunately BA has to go down this path merely to survive and I understand it is awful. Incidentally it has happened to me twice now and as mentioned yesterday, a colleague who works in the also collapsed automotive sector has seen 40% across-the-board redundancies in his company and the rest have had pay cuts between 25% and 40%.
mguinness likes this.
BOH is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 5:26 am
  #1308  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Programs: Mucci, BA Gold, TK Elite, HHonors Lifetime Diamond
Posts: 7,704
Originally Posted by BOH
Then what the unions need to do is to fight to raise the pay of ALL staff across airlines where they have staff employed under UK law. The problem is that in a competitive market arena (and air travel is fiercely competitive), if one airline has costs of X and another has costs of 2X or 3X then for the same role then something eventually has to give in the airline with the 2X or 3X costs.
Exactly. I don't remember anyone saying that people employed in a particular industry deserve low pay. If a company is forced to lower the pay to match what the competitors are doing or to adapt to new economic reality is a different matter. The low pay problem, and it is a problem, can't be fixed by any particular company. This needs addressing on a legislative level to create a level playing field for all companies. Unfortunately, as someone who entered the workforce after the 'golden age' of for-life employment or annual increases in salary, I don't think that anything will change. I can see why there are such vast differences in attitude towards employment as the view will probably depend on the person's age. It does not surprise me at all that salaries are only decreasing as years pass by, while it seems as a shock to many people.
mguinness likes this.
Andriyko is online now  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 7:20 am
  #1309  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,669
Originally Posted by Littlegirl
What is it with many of you here that you all seem to feel that anyone working in a service industry deserves to have low pay!
How has our society reached this point where I presume intelligent people argue that it is right that certain workers do not deserve a decent living that helps them live in what is the most expensive area in the country?
How is it that society seems to think that a vast swath of the population only deserve to be on low pay now, lower that in previous decades?

It really is bizarre, no one could say that any BA staff are overpaid, whichever contract they are on but constantly we are told here that cabin crew only deserve to be paid lower wages? Why is that then?

BA made 1.92 billion in profits last year while paying itís staff the current wage bill, so why do some of you feel that BA employees, particularly cabin crew, should be earning low wages?

This doesnít only apply to BA, but it seems to be a strange view taken about any service industry job? Often put forward by people on much higher wages.

I donít need any of you to actually answer these questions because I donít really want to hear what you will be saying, I just wanted to point out how very odd the views a lot of you seem to have are, where people earning quite normal wages, in fact on London standards fairly low, are considered overpaid! Quite odd.
Lots of people have said exactly this over the last few pages. If you don't agree that the legacy crew are overpaid then which other UK airline pays it's cabin crew £40k a year?

We live in a society where pay is normally determined by supply and demand. The easier it is to do a job, the lower pay will be (which is why WW gets paid more than cabin crew). I can't think of another industry where one group of people get paid 60% more for doing the same job as others. You may prefer to live in a communist society where everyone gets paid the same, but that isn't how it works here.

In relation to your comments on low wages, the official defenition of low wages is about £18k / year (median pay is about £30k and the definition of low pay is <60% of median). Is anyone at BA currently getting £18k a year, or is there a proposal to pay people £18k a year in the new set up?. If MF crew can live in London and survive on £25k a year why can't the rest?
mguinness likes this.
Agent69 is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 7:42 am
  #1310  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,669
Originally Posted by OhLordy
Yes....I get that...12000 ďselectedĒ and given statutory redundancy...and the remaining 30000? Oh yes...Current contract of employment torn up and new, inferior (and Agent69 please donít sayĒhow do you know it will be inferior? - if it wasnít then whatís the point of doing it?) offered to them.
What if one of the ďluckyĒ ones says - thanks very much but Iím quite happy with my current contract of employment? What does BA do then?
Whilst writing this I am thinking outside of the crew community where clearly there are issues over different fleets...this is about technical, non technical, administration staff et all!
A need for headcount reduction I get very clearly but this blatant attack on T&Cís is just a clear example of a race to the bottom - using this current pandemic as a convenient excuse to do it.
i cannot believe that any person on this site can find this behaviour acceptable in any way, shape and form.
As if I would.

The point I have tried to make is that it's difficult to take an impartial view of what BA are proposing without knowing what BA are proposing. I appreciate that they have the legacy crew in their cross hairs, and I have mixed views on that. Part of me says they have been coining it in for the last 10 years and are about to get their comeuppance, but I also think it is fundamentally unfair that you can slash someones salary while asking them to do what is effectively the same job. However, has anyone actually received a letter saying we will make you redundant on xx/xx/xxx, or a letter saying we propose altering your salary to £xx,xxx.

The potential pay cuts for Legacy crew are receiving a lot of publicity, and it appears they will have to bear the brunt of the cuts, but in reality how worse off will the other 25,000 that remain be?
Agent69 is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 8:00 am
  #1311  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by Agent69
Lots of people have said exactly this over the last few pages. If you don't agree that the legacy crew are overpaid then which other UK airline pays it's cabin crew £40k a year?

We live in a society where pay is normally determined by supply and demand. The easier it is to do a job, the lower pay will be (which is why WW gets paid more than cabin crew). I can't think of another industry where one group of people get paid 60% more for doing the same job as others. You may prefer to live in a communist society where everyone gets paid the same, but that isn't how it works here.

In relation to your comments on low wages, the official defenition of low wages is about £18k / year (median pay is about £30k and the definition of low pay is <60% of median). Is anyone at BA currently getting £18k a year, or is there a proposal to pay people £18k a year in the new set up?. If MF crew can live in London and survive on £25k a year why can't the rest?
There are always arguments as to a particular jobs worth in the market. It could easily be argued that given that the singular most responsible job in the UK is that of PM and therefore anyone paid more than BJ is overpaid. That is not really the point though. The way in which a company adjusts pay when a jobís remuneration becomes out of step with the market is what matters.

No staff want the company that pays their salary (and in many cases to whom they have given their working lives) go bust. That said those same staff donít want to be treated as disposable items, they want to see some of their loyalty and hard work honoured in reality, not just in lip service. Most workers are pragmatic and are really aware of the dire economic situation facing the company. They will accept redundancies as a requirement, they will accept new working conditions to cover a changing situation. What is hard to accept is being told that a company saying when it earned £1.9billion in profit that you are not worth a bonus, then more that you are to be given either a permanent, massive pay cut and t&cs changes to get over a temporary problem and that any redundancy will be on the absolute minimum allowed for in law.

Effectively the staff are being told they are not valued by the company, that they are not worthy to share in the good times and to be cast aside in the bad times like trash.

To answer the specific point as to the correct remuneration for cabin crew, can some of those posting such comments please post their role and remuneration package and justify it, before they act as the arbiters of other peopleís financial life.
Waterhorse is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 8:18 am
  #1312  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by Agent69
Lots of people have said exactly this over the last few pages. If you don't agree that the legacy crew are overpaid then which other UK airline pays it's cabin crew £40k a year?

We live in a society where pay is normally determined by supply and demand. The easier it is to do a job, the lower pay will be (which is why WW gets paid more than cabin crew). I can't think of another industry where one group of people get paid 60% more for doing the same job as others. You may prefer to live in a communist society where everyone gets paid the same, but that isn't how it works here.

In relation to your comments on low wages, the official defenition of low wages is about £18k / year (median pay is about £30k and the definition of low pay is <60% of median). Is anyone at BA currently getting £18k a year, or is there a proposal to pay people £18k a year in the new set up?. If MF crew can live in London and survive on £25k a year why can't the rest?
As far as I know BA, definitely have staff being paid that little. Their headline rate after these cuts as per some of the earlier posts in this thread is £24k OTE - this includes things like allowance to pay for food whilst traveling. I don't know about you, but none of my jobs have advertised paying for my meals whilst traveling as part of my salary as it was expected that they would.

Furthermore, what BA are doing is turning a long-term career into short term. They do not want people spending years working as cabin crew, they want to take low-paid workers and churn through so that they can continue paying low wages. This will potentially lead to the poor service and lack of experience that people complain about.

Whilst what BA is doing seems to be legal, given that they have managed to have profits in the billions before this, it would be more fair I would say to have a time limited reduction in pay for the duration of the coronavirus crisis (like some other companies have been doing - reduction in working hours for less pay spread across the whole population).
skiaplg is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 9:04 am
  #1313  
BOH
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,699
Originally Posted by skiaplg
Whilst what BA is doing seems to be legal, given that they have managed to have profits in the billions before this, it would be more fair I would say to have a time limited reduction in pay for the duration of the coronavirus crisis (like some other companies have been doing - reduction in working hours for less pay spread across the whole population).
Iíve just had a brainwave. Why doesnít UNITE meet with BA to discuss these sort of ideas? Oh wait....
BOH is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 9:41 am
  #1314  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by BOH
I’ve just had a brainwave. Why doesn’t UNITE meet with BA to discuss these sort of ideas? Oh wait....
What good would that do - UNITE have no leverage. If BA were willing to go for less damaging policies, they would have already done so, at the very least to avoid the terrible press they have been having, all over the papers, with the government, etc. Why would BA back down now after having been made to look terrible?

Fact is, it seems that BA is doing this now, because no matter how damaging the press is, it has little effect on demand (because very few people are booking holidays at the moment). No risk of crew going on strike either. I'm sure they're hoping by the time it's done and dusted in 6 months when demand starts returning, everyone will have forgotten about it...

EDIT - also, just to add - just becasue employees have a union, does not mean that the responsibility shouldn't also fall on the employer to do what is best for the employees, taking into consideration the economic circumstances, the best that they can offer, which this clearly isn't.
skiaplg is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 9:55 am
  #1315  
BOH
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,699
Originally Posted by Waterhorse
T What is hard to accept is being told that a company saying when it earned £1.9billion in profit that you are not worth a bonus, then more that you are to be given either a permanent, massive pay cut and t&cs changes to get over a temporary problem and that any redundancy will be on the absolute minimum allowed for in law.
1. I have worked for many companies where a bonus is not paid to staff. Never an issue if it is just not part of the remuneration package. Period.
2. This is really not a temporary problem and you know that 100%. If it was, BA would be advising the city that it is and that they simply were having a bad quarter. What is BA and IAG's profit forecast for this year now? That will tell you whether this is a "temporary" problem.
3. Desperate times need desperate and draconian measures. That's just the way it is.
4. When times are desperate and a business is fighting for it's very survival then absolute legal minimums sadly do come into play. I have been on the receiving end of that myself when a worked for a 737 TPM who had contracts with Dan Air and Air Europe and we saw a huge, huge chunk of income disappear. 45% of us were made redundant, all on legal minimum because the company was fighting for it's very survival and needed to preserve every penny.
5. Last years profit is last years profit, all in the previous financial year and will have zero influence on this year. However starry eyed (or bitter) someone might want to be about "they made all this money last year" it will not count one bit.
mguinness likes this.
BOH is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 10:02 am
  #1316  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by skiaplg
What good would that do - UNITE have no leverage.
This is what is wrong with the whole thing. People can debate all day long about who is being or not being reasonable (now or in the past) but when itís all over can Unite say they tried? They could go along and then say they were not listened to if thatís the case.

The system is broken
AirbusA350 likes this.
L1705 is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 10:16 am
  #1317  
BOH
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,699
Originally Posted by skiaplg
What good would that do - UNITE have no leverage. If BA were willing to go for less damaging policies, they would have already done so, at the very least to avoid the terrible press they have been having, all over the papers, with the government, etc. Why would BA back down now after having been made to look terrible?

Fact is, it seems that BA is doing this now, because no matter how damaging the press is, it has little effect on demand (because very few people are booking holidays at the moment). No risk of crew going on strike either. I'm sure they're hoping by the time it's done and dusted in 6 months when demand starts returning, everyone will have forgotten about it...

EDIT - also, just to add - just becasue employees have a union, does not mean that the responsibility shouldn't also fall on the employer to do what is best for the employees, taking into consideration the economic circumstances, the best that they can offer, which this clearly isn't.
Yes but negotiation usually takes the form of one party (the one who is in the strongest position) firstly stating a very hard-nosed and extreme position. This is usually to jolt the other side and lay down a marker in the sand that we are serious and they often imply that they will not budge. So in this case read BA.

The other side will huff and puff and call it outrageous, disgraceful, industrialised thuggery and all sorts of expletives and drag out a few poor staff members who have "given their life to the company" blah-blah......so here we have UNITE.

99% of occasions the party seeking the change (BA) will always have a fall-back position that is not nearly as bad as they make out .....and once the initial sparring is over and public insults, both sit down and talk. So then in this case, BA will concede a little (maybe significant) from their original hard-nosed position and UNITE will then be able to go public and claim what a fantastic job they have done for their members in extracting concessions from BA....when in reality they did nothing of the sort. It is a ritual that happens in any negotiation, whether it be a price you are paying for a used car, a house or in this case, a major employer wanting to seek hard changes. The side with the power decides what they actually want but always start from a harder nosed position and work back. If you want to see an absolute master at it, watch Donald Trump whenever he kicks off about something such as trade deals and tariffs, Iran, North Korea, his frequent spats with Twitter, the Mexican border fence etc, etc. His first demands are always tough and ridiculously extreme...but he rarely finishes up with what he demanded.

So in summary, I believe it is highly likely BA have a softer position that is not as harsh and draconian as people are making out and there may well be some significant concessions to be wrung from them. But if UNITE are refusing to even sit down and discuss what might be up for grabs.....how will their members ever know what they might have been able to get?
pb3, cbagent, mguinness and 1 others like this.
BOH is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 10:24 am
  #1318  
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by skiaplg
Furthermore, what BA are doing is turning a long-term career into short term. They do not want people spending years working as cabin crew, they want to take low-paid workers and churn through so that they can continue paying low wages. This will potentially lead to the poor service and lack of experience that people complain about.
This really gets me. Majority joining BA under current MF terms know what they're signing up for, a lot of them do it as a way of "seeing the World" or a gap year and moving on. Why would this lead to bad service? Unless one's saying that people paid less automatically don't have the skills that someone higher paid does in customer service? Or worse still, sometimes I feel these arguments go beyond and in a thinly veiled fashion seem to imply that a social class divide too (linked to lower pay) whereby automatically this makes WW/EF better in some way. The truth is all 3 fleets have very similar customer feedback scores (one leads one month, another leads the other month) and all 3 are consistently inconsistent. Personally I can speak of disinterested/lacklustre customer service from all 3 fleets but almost equal number of the total opposite from all 3 fleets too! I'm sure some will say "experience" plays a huge part, well I had the most amazing service from a crew member that almost was akin to what QR offer (minus dine on demand + additions they offer), he was in the company just 7 months at the time.

Also the notion that every MF crew member must be a young 18 - 22 year old that must without doubt live with parents and not be able to survive otherwise is also not true and frankly a little bit insulting to those that have been able to. There are many that live in and around the M25, of course maybe not in the best of life's luxuries/comforts but still are happy enough, of course could they do better? Yes, but so can a lot of employees in the UK! There are also quite a few older (if I may use that word) MF crew, for example, parents whose kids have all moved out of home and they've semi-retired and want to try something different, conversely there are people in MF who have been with MF since it's inception or have more than 5 years with the company simply because they love aviation and/or the job they do. As I've said in my other posts, there does seem to be borderline "snobbery" when it comes to all this. Fact is that MF still earn more than any retail job, teaching assistants, healthcare assistants and a huge number of other jobs, the fact UK baseline average pay is overall relatively low in comparison to the cost of living is a separate socio-political matter which I believe is wrong and needs to change for the better for a country that's in the World's top economies, for the record.

The other half has been with MF for 6.5 years now, she loves it and she has rented and been able to do the job living just outside the M25 and fingers crossed has been able to save some money and soon to be on the property ladder (independent of me). It is doable. She was getting good encouragement for progression of roles (including previous secondments within head office) and as the conversations were moving forward with relation to development, sadly, this pandemic has come by.
mguinness likes this.

Last edited by AirbusA350; Jun 5, 2020 at 10:31 am
AirbusA350 is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 10:32 am
  #1319  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Lemonia. Best Greek ever.
Posts: 2,306
I do not regard myself as a disposable item. - Quite an arresting phrase from earlier to-day. (Thanks, Waterhorse)

However, I have been "disposed of" 3 times in my career. That's why, much earlier in this thread, I tried to give constructive advice about Redundancy. At present, there are lots of folk impacted going through shock, disbelief, denial and anger. This can move in to depression. Perhaps serious depression.
These responses are temporary, and predictable.
Those responses are entirely NORMAL. Emotional shock is normal.

Adjustment and resolution do come. For everyone.

I wish the various TUs were helping BA staff with this sort of stuff, instead of slagging off/bullying those who do not want to toe the party line. Rather than having fanciful ideas of Protection Orders and removal of S188 notices, the TU and each and every BASSA* rep should be practically helping people.

*Whoops. Did it again. Apols to CIHY.
BOH, pb3, cbagent and 4 others like this.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old Jun 5, 2020, 11:11 am
  #1320  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by BOH
1. I have worked for many companies where a bonus is not paid to staff. Never an issue if it is just not part of the remuneration package. Period.
2. This is really not a temporary problem and you know that 100%. If it was, BA would be advising the city that it is and that they simply were having a bad quarter. What is BA and IAG's profit forecast for this year now? That will tell you whether this is a "temporary" problem.
3. Desperate times need desperate and draconian measures. That's just the way it is.
4. When times are desperate and a business is fighting for it's very survival then absolute legal minimums sadly do come into play. I have been on the receiving end of that myself when a worked for a 737 TPM who had contracts with Dan Air and Air Europe and we saw a huge, huge chunk of income disappear. 45% of us were made redundant, all on legal minimum because the company was fighting for it's very survival and needed to preserve every penny.
5. Last years profit is last years profit, all in the previous financial year and will have zero influence on this year. However starry eyed (or bitter) someone might want to be about "they made all this money last year" it will not count one bit.
1. Bonus IS part of the BA remuneration package, especially for those at the top. In fact it is called the Colleague Bonus. So your point is a personal sadness for you, but irrelevant in this discussion. Period.

2. Of course it is a temporary problem, all the predictions suggest a return to 2019 traffic levels by 2023 at the latest. Your limited imagination seems typical of modern business thinking. Its a failure if imagination and intelligence. Business goes on beyond this year's balance sheet.

3.This is just an excuse to do what you want, a failure on imagination again.

4. Maybe there are legal minimums and perhaps apt, but the failure of management to apply them to themselves says a lot. Leadership would be aot here. WW has taken a 20% pay cut - hes now only earning £54000 a month, poor man. Oh and he decided to stay in for at least another 10 months so at least another half a million trousered while he allows others to go on minimum CR terms - what a man, what a leader.

5 Horsepooh. Of course last year's money and profit has an impact on the working capital the company has this year. It does not mean that the company will earn that this year, but 5 years of record profit levels means the company is more healthy than it would have bern if it had barely made a profit.

Last edited by Waterhorse; Jun 5, 2020 at 11:29 am
Waterhorse is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.