UK Government Indecisiveness sends Travel Industry into disarray

UK Government Indecisiveness sends Travel Industry into disarray
View attachment 23281

What is absolutely clear is the UK Government has been completely indecisive when it comes to foreign travel. Foreign holidays are on, then they're off, you can book holidays, then you can't. Travel will be permitted from the 17th of May, but then, the government is not going to tell you how this can happen.

The 'traffic light' idea was released in the usual way, through a Downing Street 'leak' the day before a Downing Street conference hosted by Boris Johnson.. The scheme, largely accepted by the travel industry was a good idea, but how the scheme can be introduced seems to be completely at odds with what is actually possible within the industry. Has the travel and aviation industry even been consulted as to how to get the industry moving again, and in the safest possible way?

Boris Johnson initially told England it would find out more on the 12th of April, then in a separate release we were told Boris would announce the grand reopening of travel last Monday. A few days after the big non-event that was Boris's 'big announcement', Grant Shapps MP then went onto TV and told the nation (of England), foreign holidays were now possible this summer and people could think about booking holidays. At the same time as Grant Shapps was making his announcement, Steve Heapy, Chief Executive of Jet2 was announcing the indecisiveness of the government had lead them with no alternative but to cancel foreign holidays up until and including the 23rd June.

The industry was sent into disarray when the Boris's big announcement turned out to be nothing more than a damp squid. The industry is basically absolutely no closer to finding out when it can or can't restart or even how this can happen. Airport and airline staff are furloughed and will potentially need retraining. Aircraft will need to be brought out of storage. Resort staff in the destinations airlines wish to serve will also need to be rehired. This isn't something that can happen over night, it's something that needs planning and foresight, something the UK government is currently lacking.

 

"This isn't something that can happen over night, it's something that needs planning and foresight, something the UK government is currently lacking"

This is articulated very well - the line is currently sums up a lot of peoples feelings.

It is now amazing; whilst they've had many differing industries on board for first 6 months of this pandemic; they appear to now be loosing industry confidence. Hospitality has taken them to court twice and won; third case will be heard this week. Aviation is now coming out and publicly, quite righty, putting the blame now firmly at the governments door.

As someone on Prune said and it got me thinking - The right wing media narrative is to blame the airlines for these decisions and the government get away smelling of roses.

 

I've just read the latest newsletter from Pilots Together.

This charity was set up just over a year ago supporting airline pilots who have been furloughed or made redundant. The Chair is Scottie Bateman, BA A350 First Officer who regularly posts on Twitter. In addition to offering mental health support, they also have a grant scheme in place. Their Christmas Raffle has some amazing prizes, Okay, tickets started at £5 (last year) but it's a worthy cause.

I am not associated with them in any way, so this is not a "plug". Just thought I'd give them a mention because the Government's inaction has forced many pilots to seek health and financial support.

 

If you want to leave a link then anyone wishing to help them can get in touch?

 

Not had much success with doing links before so hope this works.

https://pilotstogether.org

 

Another great initiative from Pilots Together.

"A common theme from our pilot members is their keenness to get back in the air. As I'm sure we can all appreciate, they miss flying. To go a very small way to rectify this we have started the PilotsTogether Buddy Flying program. This aims to connect our supporters who are general aviation light aircraft pilots, with pilots who have been made redundant so that you can share a flight together.

We have a page on our website dedicated to this program which can be found here. If you are a light aircraft pilot and are willing to have one of our pilots as a passenger free of charge on one of your flights please add an offer on this page. If you own your own aircraft and are willing to rent it to one of our pilots at a reduced rate, subject to any checks you require, please also add an offer on this page. Your details will then be available to our pilots and they will be able contact you directly - non-members will not see the offer.

Please note that PilotsTogether's role with regard to buddy flights is that of a facilitator only. PilotsTogether will not be involved in arranging any flights ourselves. It is the responsibility of the aircraft owner to carry out any checks which may be required. PilotsTogether takes no responsibility for any flights that are conducted, and assumes no liability whatsoever for any buddy flight arrangements".

The work situation is improving, albeit very slowly. Some UK pilots have interviewed for and got jobs with overseas airlines. Others may have possibly applied to Flybe during their recent advertising campaign. However, many have had to settle for roles such as postmen, delivery drivers (DPD, etc) or even managing Covid testing centres.

 

Not directly linked with Pilots Together but there is a surprising (to me anyway) action currently being taken by BALPA.

Briefly, 18 months ago BALPA formally objected to Bristol Airport's planning application which, inter alia, would have raised the airport's annual passenger cap from 10 million to 12 million, and in so doing generate additional flights. The local authority rejected the application.

Since 20 July this year three planning inspectors from the national Planning Inspectorate have been conducting a planning enquiry (streamed live on YouTube) into the airport's appeal against the local authority rejection - the enquiry is due to end next week. BALPA is accredited to the planning enquiry and is persisting with its objection.

BALPA explained at the outset that its reason for objecting both to the original planning application and now the appeal is a lack of reasonable parking provision for its members. Beyond that it has no objection in principle to the airport's expansion.

So the union appears to put parking provision (there is provision for staff at the airport - it's just not where BALPA wants it to be) before extra jobs for its members that expansion of the airport would bring. This at a time when the industry is in turmoil and many pilots around the country are still grounded through lack of opportunity.

 

TLY, thanks for the insight.

BALPA moves in mysterious ways! Didn't Virgin Atlantic form their own pilots union, the PPU. Management refused to recognise; new union subsequently dissolved earlier this year, so presume all Virgin Atlantic pilots are now back in BALPA.

Can find nothing on the easily accessible parts of the union's website explaining their stance at BRS. It suggests their members are averse to a walk or getting on a shuttle bus. Have they backed this up with a poll of members or just come out with what appears to be a random statement?

Totally agree, it's a strange one under the current circumstances. Wonder if there's a hidden agenda that we're not privy to?

 

This is BALPA's statement of case to the planning enquiry determining the airport's appeal.

I can understand their concern but their actions do bring the words nose, spite and face into my thoughts.

https://gat04-live-1517c8a4486c41609369c68f30c8-aa81074.divio-media.org/filer_public/3f/79/3f79fc65-64ed-4263-ab34-a828d3c2147a/18_p_5118_out-balpa_-_statement_of_case-3021385.pdf

 

Having read the statement (thanks TLY), I now understand their position.

They've used a good argument about Green Belt being further eroded, but as I'm not familiar with the area cannot really comment on intended carpark location. Unfortunately, it's often the most cost-effective and quickest way to fulfil the need for expansion. Airport expansion is always a contentious subject. There's a controversial Green Belt building project just started near my home. Think the initial works are the road access to/from the A38; when completed it will be a mix of housing, small shops, doctor surgery plus light industry (technology, etc). The developer has had to jump through burning hoop to satisfy Council and get approval. Over 5+ years there's been vociferous objections about the type of land, development and infrastructure. No nearby railway station and non-existent bus service. The only good access is to M6 Toll.

BALPA's comments about their members' health and welfare is probably an issue BRS overlooked, because they've focused on customer needs and/or don't consider it important. Pilots, like the rest of us, can get stuck in traffic jams. Although regulated, their working day can be extended by events out of their control. The last thing they want on arrival, after a long day, is a trek to the carpark even if transport is provided. So why should they be penalised?

Yes, without the insight into a pilot's working day and all the rules/regulations involved, it can seem that their union is being pedantic. Unfortunately, some airlines expect their pilots to break the rules to keep the number crunchers happy. Simkins vs Thomas Cook is a fine example.

 

The staff car park used to be at the end of the airfield where the passenger activity is concentrated - the Northside - which contains the terminal, hotel etc together with various passenger car parks. The Southside of the airport is the home of general aviation, FBO, flying school, admin block and various other activities. It also contains a huge passenger surface car park known as the Silver Zone which in the past decade has been allowed by the planning authority (when the local authority was Conservative-controlled) to expand into the Green Belt (the main part of the airport on the Northside is in a Green Belt Inset which removes Green Belt restrictions).

The Southside and Northside are connected via a journey partly along the A38 of nearly a mile and airport shuttle buses regularly convey airline passengers between Silver Zone and terminal. Crew buses do the same with staff who now have to park on the Southside.

It seems that if the airport permitted BALPA members to use the Northside again for parking that would resolve BALPA's grievance. The union admits it has no objection in principle to the airport expanding so it has to be asked how worried they really are about further erosion of the Green Belt or are they using that as a convenient peg on which to hang their car parking argument?

I'm not looking at this through the eyes of an aviation enthusiast or supporter of Bristol Airport. I've never been either in what is probably the accepted sense. I believe BRS to be an extremely useful facility for the region but I'm not advocating expansion at any price.

I will be quite content with whatever the planning inspectors decide with the appeal as the decision will have been made independently by professionals with no axe to grind or local pressures brought to bear which is the complete antithesis to amateur local planning councillors. What I don't want to see is the new secretary of state (Michael Gove) reversing his predecessor's (Robert Jenrick) decision to allow the planning inspectors to decide the appeal themselves. If the new s of s 'recovers' the appeal to take the decision himself that would involve a political element with which I would be far less comfortable.

However, I do find BALPA's stance difficult to fully understand because whatever happens with the appeal there is no guarantee that they will succeed with their car parking demand, and if the airport loses BALPA will also miss out on extra work for its members. That's their business but it doesn't help out-of-work pilots back into jobs.

Quote Quote

 

Thanks TLY

Very strange that we both talk about the A38 but in different parts of the country. It's a long road.....

 

Further to #8-13 above, yesterday at the planning enquiry BALPA's representative cross-examined the airport's expert witness and it transpired that moving the staff car park from Northside to Southside is not part of the current airport planning application subject of appeal. Consent for this was given at the previous airport major planning application that was approved by the local authority in 2011.

This reinforces the view that whatever the result of the appeal the staff car parking issue is a separate one and might not be resolved to BALPA's satisfaction anyway with, as previously stated, a rejection of the appeal also meaning the loss of potential pilot jobs.