THE COST OF THE NEW SCHEME

British Airways claims the raison d’être for the changes to the existing Staff Travel scheme (and contrary to the answer given in the Retiree FAQs), is that Staff Travel is a cost item and penalising the some of the pensioners will go a long way to reducing those costs.

This is patently stupid and demeans the people proposing it.

Firstly, even first year accountancy students know that company finances can be shown to prove practically anything, but this proposition is so fatuous we can even accept the fanciful statement as true for a moment.

What British Airways contends is that to reduce the cost of Staff Travel the company will :-

1 extend the definition of "Travel partner" so that everyone, married or single, can change their nominee every six months;

2 reduce the qualification period for 100% firm travel from 20 years to 5 years;

3 convert a number of 100% subload entitlements to 100% firm tickets each year;

4 double the number of 100% firm tickets to which some people are entitled each year;

5 extend Staff Travel eligibility to people who are not pensioners but who served 10 years or more.

British Airways claims that none of these changes will increase the demand for staff travel. As they say in street parlance today - oh yeah.

That is the nub; British Airways seriously wants everyone to believe that by imposing arbitrary and vindictive limits on the staff Travel eligibility for some elderly former staff it will reduce the costs of Staff Travel. What tosh.

What is really puzzling is, if cost reduction was its genuine intention instead of bigoted nonsense why didn’t British Airways choose to make the effect of the changes fair and equal on everybody? Why antagonise one group specifically? This is a change that won’t even affect all pensioners, just some. Why? It’s daft.

Every tenet of the skill and art of negotiation argues for making changes apply equally - that way no group is formed which can provide a focus for opposition. When the general rate of income tax is increased we all feel aggrieved but after the press furore has calmed we get on with it. However, a change which favours the rich or penalises the poor immediately gathers its own vociferous agitators who have the propensity and dedication to prolong their opposition out of all comparison.

The illogicality of British Airways taking this action is so startling it seems bound to provoke a question that would otherwise be unthinkable. Why is Willie Walsh so determined to penalise one specific group of pensioners?