Not much authority at Heathrow

Yet again the BBC, and ITN and Sky too, repeat the nonsense that Heathrow is part of the "British Airports Authority". It isn't, but they give the impression that somehow this snowbound winter wonderland is down to the government. The British Airports Authority ceased being years ago. The Spanish owned company that is today's operator of Heathrow is BAA plc. All they did was turn the initials into a company logo. It would have been helpful all round if they had chosen a brand new name. But they didn't. However, they have no authority as such, just the competences of their management. Now that's where we can quiz them about snow and planes and runways.

BAA chief executive Colin Matthews admits the airport has let people down. He came on the radio this morning sounding a mixture of apologetic soul and gung-ho maverick. But not enough to shift the planes. Boris Johnson says, "It can't be beyond the wit of man surely to find the shovels, the diggers, the snow-ploughs or whatever it takes to clear the snow out from under the planes, to get the planes moving and to have more than one runway going." I agree. BAA don't see it this way.

I bet it's the same at Heathrow as it is in Sainsburys, at the bank, or anywhere else you expect a service these days. Large corporations appear to be running their businesses on a minimal staffing basis. Plus the fact that customers are expected to pitch in when the going gets tough. "Unexpected item on the runway!".

Colin Matthews spun a good line. He had me thinking, "yeah, OK", but then that's not really good enough. Britain doesn't have a very good image abroad for coping with chaos. We're not exactly like headless chickens, more a kind of herd of cows in need of a good bull. The one thing that all these organisations could do is keep us INFORMED!!!! We are sick and tired of the mushroom treatment. Maybe we could have an Apprentice version for corporate bosses. "What was you thinking of?" may get some results.

How about New Year resolutions being that all the lessons we think we need to learn will actually be learnt by the end of next year? Forget the inquiry, Mr.Hammond, just get out the exercise books!

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340146/UK-SNOW-CHAOS-Heathrow-Airport-boss-admits-prepared-says-truly-sorry-disruption.html#ixzz18fV8KRa4

Gordon Brown digs his heels into Heathrow tarmac!

He's a stubborn old mule, that's for sure! On the court decision, Gordon Brown mumbles on about the third runway being "vital not just to our national economy, but enables millions of citizens to keep in touch with their friends and families". So they can't now? What runways can't they fly from currently? The mind boggles at the man's diminishing sense of reasoning.

If anything we have far too much seat capacity on planes. Unless the "millions of citizens" are going to be forced to fly once a week on a trip to somewhere, the third runway vision is only a grandiose scheme to give the construction industry a boost. Surely that industry would be better placed giving us high speed rail, or better roads, or better houses.

The older I get the more I think those in charge have "being a moron" as the top skill on their CVs.

Heathrow third runway opponents win court challenge

Campaigners have won a High Court battle over plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Councils, residents and green groups had said the government's approval of the runway was flawed by "conspicuously unfair" public consultations. All this has been couched in terms of the green agenda.

Lord Adonis said, "A new runway at Heathrow will help secure jobs and underpin economic growth as we come out of recession. It is also entirely compatible with our carbon reduction target, as demonstrated in the recent report by the Committee on Climate Change." He always sounds like a pained angel, completely at odds with the argument.

A third runway is neither needed or desired. This is some fictitious fact dreamt up by Gordon Brown as some panacea for our problems. It is also a desire by British Airways to have folk flock down to London in order to use Terminal 5. Anyone living near a regional airport can come and go as they please. Birmingham has flights to all parts of the globe. But many in the West Midlands have been duped into thinking that London is the gateway to Paradise, so they endure the travails of train travel and the sweaty tube.

Madness is all around us. Boris Johnson thinks it a great idea to dump Heathrow and build a brand new airport in the Thames Estuary (or beside it, to be more factual). Such nonsense I thought had passed with the last century.

Birmingham Airport needs £25 million to expand its runway in order to have flights to Los Angeles, Beijing and other far flung parts. It will create jobs for a genuine service. The Heathrow business will be an expensive elephant on the runway. I think anyone north of Watford should give this project a wide berth.

Hoon's Hollow Heathrow Win!

When it comes to giving elocution lessons to weasels, Geoff Hoon is the man. Highly regarded in all ways for his weasel words, he has just managed to get his Heathrow expansion vote through the House of Commons.

Just like he waffled on about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he is waffling on about opposition to a third runway as doing "serious damage" to Britain's economy. He accused the Tories of "political opportunism of the lowest kind". He should know all about that! He weaseled his way through the Iraq enquiries like a snake oil salesman.

The truth is that this third runway is NOT about loss of jobs but more the re-arrangement of jobs. It is about BAA and British Airways enjoying a superior status. It has been suggested that Birmingham's runway extension could be halted if this goes ahead. Why? Because we would all be expected to trundle down to London to fly off from there, paying the likes of BAA for the privilege!

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that Hoon is up to something. What exactly, I'm not sure. None of this makes any sense except that the government is in bed with the Heathrow expansionists. Why on earth would I want to fly from Heathrow to, say, Seattle, when I could with an extended Birmingham runway? Now that's where the jobs nonsense comes in. London airport workers OK, Birmingham airport workers - forget it!

As I've said before, the answers will not be forthcoming to any sane and rational questions put to ministers. Just look at the hapless Brown, who apparently was bringing on the crocodile tears as he pleaded for votes today. He was ridiculous in the Commons at PMQs. He doesn't answer a single question, but just repeats his gormless mantra that the Tories are "the do nothing party".

Well his do something has been disastrous for the country. The man is an utter disgrace. Time is running out and we need change now. Oh, how we need change.

Willie Walsh and his weasel words!

The chief executive of British Airways has kissed the blarney stone and is off at full pelt with supporting the "we must have a third runway" proposals. I saw him on BBC's Question Time from Leeds. He got a free ride, that's for sure. Only David Dimbleby picked up "unnecessary flights" which an audience member had asked about. Dimbleby wryly suggested that these were those on competitors' flights. Audience laughter. Willie goes along with this and smiles.

Now I have no desire to see British Airways do other than prosper. However, it must be as a successful business because it attracts custom not because it out to do down others or create advantages paid for by the taxpayer. In short, these proposals as outlined by Geoff Hoon have nothing to do with jobs or the well-being of our economy. What they are about is securing advantage for British Airways and BAA, the owners of Heathrow at the expense of others.

When Terminal 5 was given the go ahead, this duo said they would not press for a third runway. They've got Terminal 5 and they still want the runway. On the programme, a woman asked why Leeds/Bradford Airport was not being given the extra flights. "We want to expand business here too!" she said. Willie was sympathetic but basically unconcerned.

He now wants all UK flights to go via Heathrow. This is so that BA can get the custom and not Air France or KLM or Lufthansa. He uses the mantra of "lost jobs" but anyone wanting to come to London already can from anywhere in the world. So all this is about forcing people to use Heathrow over Schiphol or CDG.

Willie Walsh also claims Heathrow has 180 destinations and some that the others don't have. Well Manchester has 225 and some destinations that Heathrow doesn't have. He never once mentioned Manchester! I wonder why?

This is not about the economy. It is not about jobs as such. The spin and subterfuge are there to obtain a goal. Perhaps when the enquiries come, we can find out how many planes are flying into Heathrow half full or empty? That's another question that needs answering.

British Airways left the domestic market as far as aircraft were concerned. However, they still sell flights from regional airports through codeshare arrangements as do other airlines. We don't need an expanded Heathrow for this to continue.

The only reason for Heathrow to get a third runway would be if there were no flights going from anywhere else. As this is patently not the case, the proposals for this runway are dead in the water.

Willie and his pals need to answer three questions.

1. Is it impossible now for a person to fly to London in order to visit as a tourist or to do business? YES or NO.
2. How many planes fly half empty or below full capacity into and out of Heathrow currently?
3. Is it impossible for a person to fly from any one of the top 20 regional airports to the USA, Europe, Australasia or anywhere else without flying though Heathrow? YES or NO.

These are the questions that may take some time to get answers to. We need integrity in business, not the handiwork of spinmeisters!

Chambers of Commerce in Heathrow hotair

I've just seen a guy from the North-East Chambers of Commerce talking on BBC News. Ross Somebody. Apparently he thinks this Heathrow expansion is good news. When asked why, he said he hoped some of the new slots at Heathrow would be given over to flights to Newcastle. This much alarmed the interviewer, as his blatant reasoning was nothing much to do with anything other than a quick fix for transport via "a UK hub".

The Chambers of Commerce are fast becoming the trojan horse in all this. I am not against reasoned airport expansion, but not on the airy fairy lines most of these guys in the airport business go along. They have the mantra about "creating jobs" and that "our prosperity is at risk". The same parrots that suddenly stopped sqwarking at the time of the sub-prime fiasco and all the dodgy dealings of last year.

Newcastle Airport is not cut off from the rest of the world. There are flights to Dubai with Emirates with onward connections. And they have access to a hub in Amsterdam with KLM and CDG in Paris. Of course, this Ross guy knows that, but he doesn't want the present flights out of Newcastle publicised. He wants to dig up more land in Middlesex so he can have more flights from Heathrow. It's moronic and it's shameful.

If a businessperson wanted to fly to Newcastle from anywhere they can do it via Amsterdam or Paris. Why on earth would they be more impressed by going through Heathrow. For starters the shopping is better in Amsterdam. All British airports need to get a grip of what's on offer in the retail side of their businesses before they start dreaming of third runways.

However, listening to Ross one could be forgiven for thinking that the North-East was stranded and suffering business-wise. He conveniently did not mention that British Airways currently flies from Heathrow to Newcastle,so why would he want want to keep quiet on that one.

In all this waffle, we must be on the lookout for the disingenous and the downright deceitful. Oh, and isn't it funny that these Chamber types are so pro-European when it suits them but anti-European when they think it fits their agenda.

Is BAA flying on hot air?

According to The Independent, "there is not much doubt what the Government's decision about a third runway for Heathrow will be. This week, Geoff Hoon, the Transport Secretary, with the support of the Prime Minister, is likely to give the go-ahead to the expansion. Equally, however, there can be little doubt that the third runway will never be built".

That is much of the trouble with the governance in Britain. It's looking two ways at once in the vain hope of pleasing as many people as possible. With so many years of this nonsense, we have become a country very much ill at ease with itself. The recession is bound to cause more of the same. In a nutshell it is called "Short Termism". Quick fixes just to gain instant popularity. So long as something is happening, we are given to believe all is OK.

So the "slippery" BAA carries on. Sir John Egan, its former boss, said that Terminal Five would not add to pressure for a third runway. Last week, BAA admitted, "That's what he had to say to get permission for Terminal Five." There's a TV commercial running at the moment about "who do you trust?" and given the antics of the corporate world, most people don't trust business-speak anymore.

The Third Runway debate with be just like the Euro debate. Stick up the Five Tests, which in this case are all anti-pollution ones, and say that when they are met you can have it. So the runway will never be as the tests will never be met.

If only these nutcases could sit down in a room and actually think out a proper transport strategy for the whole country. But being what they are that is probably impossible. A whole new set of people, with clean sheets, are required. For unless we get an integrated transport policy, we will continue to have airports each doing their own thing, trains running around full and empty, cars clogging up some roads whilst others are almost vehicular free.

It's either a frustrated travelling public or a happy one.

BAA to be broken up?

The Competition Commission is halfway through its deliberations on the merits of BAA having the lion's share of British airports. The BBC still hankers after the old "British Airports Authority", but BAA is not British and it certainly lacks authority. Airports seems to be the only word with a common thread in all this. When Margaret Thatcher privatised the monolith, she probably had no idea of how air travel would increase and that the Spanish would be running the show.

Now the CC has embarked on a probe to see if it is a good thing to force Ferrovial to divest itself of one or more of the airports in their ownership. "We are particularly concerned by its (BAA's) apparent lack of responsiveness to the differing needs of its airline customers, and hence passengers," said Christopher Clarke, chairman of the BAA airports inquiry. He said he was also worried that having so many airports owned by BAA meant that big development projects were being carried out one at a time. I think that the CC's concentration on capacity overlooks the dire need for competition.

Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are looking to BAA to divest itself of an airport or two. "The case for breaking up BAA gets stronger by the day," said Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers. "BAA's monopolistic grip on so many of the UK's major airports has not been serving passengers or airlines well - as can be seen from the debacle at Terminal 5 and the yearly Heathrow hassle during the summer months," she added.

Personally I'm not affected, as Birmingham Airport stands alone from the airport groupings. However, it shouldn't be about what I want, it is about making the lives of Heathrow passengers a bit better. I can't see the existing BAA set-up figuring it out in a hurry.

BA careers terminated by T5 fiasco!

The careers of two senior British Airways executives were ended abruptly today. Only days after Willie Walsh said nobody was going, these two get the chop. Gareth Kirkwood, director of operations, and David Noyes, director of customer services, are going. One wonders what Willie is thinking. He says he's got to stay in order to sort out the mess. Had he no contributing hand in all this? Sounds like he swanned in all aghast at the terrible chaos, but saw none of it as being linked to him.

If Willie Walsh ever appeared on the Apprentice as project manager with these two hapless boardroom casualties, it would be fairly obvious that the audience would be wondering how he escaped. "What was you thinking, Willie? 25,000 bags went missing! You weren't there. You brought Gareth back into the boardroom. Why him? A wizz at computers, eh? And what of David. No good, was 'e?" It would make good TV if nothing else!

However, the T5 story goes on. A bit like Peyton Place, for those who can remember it. Now insurance companies are saying they won't insure lost bags in Terminal 5. It's never ending. Someone needs to get a grip, and it's not just the bag handles.

BA! BAA! Baggage Man! Have you any bags?

Terminal 5 at Heathrow is facing fresh baggage woes. Heathrow's operator BAA found its computer system, which sorts bags before they are loaded onto flights, had malfunctioned and manual sorting has had to be carried out. A spokeswoman described the situation today as "incredibly disappointing" but said the airline was working with BAA to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.

INCREDIBLY DISAPPOINTING? This is all becoming an incurable affliction rather than a minor ailment. It wouldn't be disappointing if British Airways had carried out proper checks in the first place. Most people involved in the dummy runs suggested that it was a calamity waiting to happen. The "Spanish Practices" of BAA don't help either. It is about time this outfit was broken up and proper running of our airports got underway.

BAA owns not just Heathrow, but Gatwick, Stansted, Southampton, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. As if that was not enough, the hopeless Ferrovial has managed to get its hands on Belfast City Airport.

Where is the wretched Transport Secretary in all this? Baby Ruth may be a candy bar, but Gordon's Ruth is not so sweet!

The Willie Walsh job interview!

"Good morning, Willie. We'd just like to ask you a few questions. OK?"
"Yes!"
"What makes you think you'll make a good job of running Terminal 5?"
"Well, I've kissed the Blarney Stone. Will that help?"
"Could do. Have you had any experience handling bags?"
"Not actually carrying bags, if that's what you mean, but I once carried the bishop's mitre when I was an altar boy!"
"Very commendable. How are you at car parking? Have you much experience?"
"Not with parking other people's cars. I did come top in my driving test with my three-point turns, though."
"Excellent! Very good. Well, that's about it then, Willie. Have you any questions before you start?"
"Yes. Where do I pick up the key to start that conveyor belt thing?"

Horrors in Heathrow's New Terminal 5

The check-in procedures have been suspended at Heathrow's new £4.3bn Terminal 5, which opened to the public today. It seems to get worse. One worker said, "The computer cannot cope with the number of bags going through". Oh yes! Is that so? What sort of management have the shareholders of British Airways hired?

It is all crazy! British Airways, which has sole use of the terminal, cancelled 34 flights due to "teething problems" and was later forced to stop the luggage check-in. In a statement, BA said it had experienced "initial teething problems" first thing in the morning, which had caused delays in staff arriving at their posts. Difficulties included car parking provision, delays in staff security screening and staff familiarisation and "some baggage performance issues", it said.

It's all wing and a prayer stuff! Didn't they check on all this before deciding to open up. All it does is further the belief that management is far more concerned with bonuses that it is with performance.

"Could do better" should go down on any report!

Back to baggage trouble at Heathrow!

Baggage problems have hit the Terminal 5 public opening at Heathrow Airport. Some wag employed by British Airways blamed glitches with the bags on problems with "staff familiarisation". Many passengers apparently faced problems with their baggage. A BBC reporter on a flight to Paris said no passenger bags had arrived. Luggage belonging to travellers landing in the UK also failed to arrive.

What is it with large companies today? They take the pounds but appear to have little or no interest in customer service. It beggars belief that British Airways, trumpeting this big hangar as the be all and end all of flight delays and passenger problems, sees this cock-up as a lack of "staff familiarisation"!! They've had years to plan to get it right!

Do those running the company deserve their top jobs?