BA CEO to be quizzed by Transport Committee - Sept 16th
 

Mods feel free to move to the other threads on this but I thought it’s worth mentioning separately.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...259110474.jpeg

https://committees.parliament.uk/com...ect-committee/

Hi.

They could at least have chosen a ba plane for the photo.

Photo looks like an AA777 in the old aa livery

Regards

Tbs

I imagine BA will want to have the redundancy situation completed before AC’s appearance.

Can any of our British users comment on expectations and outcomes? Is Parliament going to beat BA up on their labor practices / etc?

In the US, testifying before Congress is usually a lot of posturing/hot air that the public doesn't even bother watching. Nothing changes, but we may get some good headlines if someone makes a really stupid comment.

Its the same in the UK ever since they brought live TV Media into the committees.
The committees I had been to in the past were all very dry and mater of fact / fact finding.

I’d say there is an element of grandstanding and showmanship (they are politicians after all), but not to the extent you get over in the US. It is still possible to tease out some genuinely new information and understand the situation a little more.

TBD,
Mainly grandstanding politicians, but the prep work done by those appearing sometimes clarifies issues in the minds of those appearing, in a way in which their sycophantic Board members try to avoid.

I imagine that the Board of BA do not press AC/WW in the way in which they should. However, the PR etc people preparing them for Select Cttees can point out the difficult questions that they need to respond to/avoid.
CEOs that lead with their egos do not look good. Those armed with facts can bore the Cttee in to submission!

Some senior folk can do this well. Others are useless.

Such a pity they didnt tag the real alex cruz in their tweet ;)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure there's much fact-finding involved in US Congressional testimony. CEOs repeat the same narrative / pre-made statements they've already made. Congresscritters rehash their own pre-made statements, which may or may not even be relevant to the discussion to begin with. A big waste of time - both the event and the lack of any real outcome. (and this is why no one here pays any attention)

I’d like to be hopeful and think it will play out a bit more constructively as this is the second time BA have been called in to be questioned by members of government. The bad PR seems to have worked in that they are at least hearing BA out.

Walsh did his part, now they have requested Cruz, which seems a better approach overall. By the date Walsh is only days away from retirement, maybe that’s the reason. Or did AC put himself forward?

Either way FTers who listen in will learn a wee bit more about the CEO! Or possibly not...

The latter I supect....unless they plan on asking him about his hobbies and what his favourite tipple is.

Today’s the day. Alex Cruz will be attending a meeting with the Transport Committee.

Here’s the URL for watching...

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/inde...b-872878116350

This starts at 9.30am BST.

Some opening points from Señor Cruz, as interviewd by somewhat sun-tanned Huw Merriman MP and Lillian Greenwood MP.

Worst period of BA' history.
- Passenger numbers 187k per week rather than 1 million a year ago
- Flight numbers 20-30% of normal
- Fewer flights inevitably means fewer staff
- Regrets loss of staff but inevitable
- Focus on protecting the 30,000 jobs that will remain with the ailrine
- Still far few customers than normal
- Some passengers still afraid of travelling
- No testing régime in place
- APD still payable on domestic services
- We do not see a short term return to business
- Praised pilots' union for their constructive approach
- Non pilot unions chose different paths and did not engage
- Since then, agreement has been reached with the unions, at least in principle
- As a result existing contracts will be amended rather than fire+rehire
- Very pleased that 140 days into consultation we now have agreement in principle, and that is what matters

Travel Corridors
- Supports HMG's attempt to protect her citizens
- No shortage of consultation with HMG, more than weekly
- Important that we have a testing programme as soon as possible to reduce "quarantine".
- New York specifically in scope for this, perhaps as a trial.
- Suggesting testing on arrival and again at 5 days.
- Travel corridor process is very disruptive due to the daily announcements
- Less change and more consistency is needed
- APD is excessive and we need to simulate travel back up and running by removing this expense
- Need more regional routes to lower risk areas
- Less worried about the specific details of testing, more concerned about consistency and avoiding short-term reactions

Not watching the live stream, so no idea how AC is coming across, but all the points in CWS’s précis seem completely valid to me.

EDIT: Just watched a couple of minutes, caught the end of a discussion on testing and the start of one on APD. I think AC came across well, not hugely charismatic but he seemed competent.