BA to Make 5,800 Workers Redundant

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

BA to Make 5,800 Workers Redundant

Concern for Health in East Kent (CHEK)

Stop the War on Dissent!

Prospects for Peace and Reunification in Korea

Fidel Castro Speaks in Cuba

British Airways on February 13 announced the axing of 5,800 workers’ jobs. This takes job losses at the airline to 13,000 since September. The airline will also cut routes out of Gatwick, with four long-haul and four short-haul routes transferred to Heathrow. Eventually a further 10 routes will go altogether as part of a major reduction in capacity. At Gatwick the cuts amount to 60%.

The cuts ordered on Wednesday hit management levels hard, with one in three staff at head office to go. BA has now shed almost one in four staff since September, with the workforce shrinking from the pre-September level of 56,700 to 43,700 by March 2004. It is part of a "significant restructuring" to achieve savings of £650 million a year and is aimed at allowing the airline to compete with the budget operators which have flourished while BA has struggled.

The restructuring will see long-haul destinations reduced from 41 to 15 through the suspension of unprofitable routes and moving others to Heathrow. BA's British-based fleet of aircraft will be cut by 49 to 305 by the summer of 2003.

Wednesday’s announcement is part of the company's Future Size and Shape review announced in the wake of the slump in passenger numbers after the September 11 attacks. It is planned to save BA £650 million a year by March 2004. The job cuts form the largest part of the "cost-cutting" measures, with £450 million in savings made from staff and property reductions.

BA announced worst-ever quarterly losses of £187 million for the three months until the end of December, blaming its predicament on the slump in transatlantic and business traffic. Numbers of business passengers – the market that BA relies on for almost all its profits – slumped by 27 per cent during October to December on the previous year.

In another blow last month the airline was forced to pull back from allying with American Airlines because the conditions set down by the US Department of Transportation were deemed too harsh.

Chief executive Rod Eddington said that BA must be transformed into a "simpler, leaner, more focused airline so we can thrive and prosper in an increasingly competitive market". He said the introduction of cheaper Internet fares and lower fares on European routes did not mean that BA was becoming a low-cost airline, saying: "We will not become a no-frills airline nor will we launch one."

Job Cuts

The eventual total of 13,000 job cuts will include 400 pilots, 3,400 cabin crew, 800 customer services staff at Heathrow, 550 customer services staff at Gatwick, 1,500 engineers, 2,600 world sales staff, 800 cargo employees and 2,950 others, mainly among head office and support staff.

About 6,600 of the jobs will be cut from Heathrow, 3,000 from Gatwick, 1,200 from regional bases in Britain, and 2,200 will go overseas. City analysts believe as many as 20 per cent of BA's 51,000 staff could eventually be cut.

The company said it aims to make the job cuts on a voluntary basis and will work with trade unions to achieve the target.

Union Leaders’ Response

Union leaders attacked the job cuts with Bill Morris, general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, saying they are "much worse" than expected. "We expected mild surgery but what we have got is butchery," he said. "We will not be rushing off to the barricades, but we will certainly be rushing to the negotiating table," Bill Morris said, calling for "managed" job cuts. He added: "On the basis of no compulsory redundancies and no attacks on our members' terms and conditions, we will help to achieve a managed reduction."

Roger Lyons, joint general secretary of the engineering union Amicus, said the job cuts over the next two years were a "devastating blow" to staff. He said staff have acted impeccably in responding to the needs of the company to safeguard jobs over recent months. Roger Lyons added: "We will make every effort to mitigate as many of the job cuts as we can and will work with the company to avoid compulsory redundancies."

Financial Institution Response

Amanda Forysth, a fund manager at Standard Life Investments, said the targeted annualised savings would be the key to its reform agenda in a market in which cheap tickets were putting pressure on average fare yields. "The key for them is to keep those cost cuts in the face of the continuing pressure on [average fare] yields," Amanda Forsyth said. "Obviously these remain very difficult times for the airline." She added the size of job cuts were within the "ball park".

"What is reassuring is they are addressing the problems with their European short-haul operations, and the Gatwick plans interestingly look in many ways similar to the low-cost carriers," Amanda Forsyth, whose fund owns about 2.3 per cent of BA, said.

How the cutbacks will work

The effect on Heathrow

It is Heathrow and especially its Waterside HQ which is bearing the brunt. More than a third, 3,000 jobs are to go at Waterside. The total number of jobs going at Heathrow is 6,600 of the 13,000 axed, with big cuts among cabin crew based there, as well as in sales and engineering. With cuts and transfers in routes from Gatwick what BA is signalling today is that Heathrow is very much the concentrated hub of its operations from now on.

The effect on Gatwick

Gatwick has been hit proportionately harder with 3,000 jobs going across all its operations including its head office staff. BA is almost pulling out completely from long-haul services at Gatwick reducing the number of destinations from 41 to 15 and several short-haul routes have also gone. BA has also signalled that Gatwick will become the centre of a rejigged European strategy, which will see it fight it out with the budget airlines. And where BA is pulling out of take-off and landing slots, the likes of easyJet, which is starting several services at Gatwick, is ready to step in.

The cut in routes

At Heathrow, BA has been pulling back from the number of services to its major US destinations: JFK in New York, Boston and Washington. At Gatwick, the JFK service has already been pulled and it has cut back services to other US destinations such as San Diego and Houston. Other longer haul flights to the Middle East and South America have also been much reduced. On the short-haul, the £10 million a year loss-making Heathrow-Belfast route has gone and other loss-making routes from Gatwick to southern Ireland and the likes of Rotterdam, Stockholm, Zurich, Gdansk and Montpelier have been pulled. BA says it will cut another five long-haul and five short-haul routes. In a bid to cut costs many other

Gatwick routes, to eastern Europe and places such as Mauritius, Buenos Aires and Lagos are moving to Heathrow. In total more than 200 scheduled flights a week have been pulled.

Comment

One in four employees of British Airways have lost their jobs since 11 September, and in the company's head office near Heathrow the figure is one in three. At Gatwick, the second most important hub in the BA system, there are today just four British Airways flights for every 10 which took off in the summer of 1999.

It is clear that it is the workers’ livelihoods rather than any other "cost" which are to feel the effect of BA’s cost-cutting axe. The British airline was privatised 15 years ago. BA is now caught in the crisis of the policy of privatisation itself. Is the government prepared to take on the risks and the necessary funding associated with such enterprises? How necessary are these enterprises to the financial oligarchy as a whole? These are the kind of questions that arise, as a global economic slump, only fuelled in part by the events of September 11, begins to bite. How intent will the government be to see the airline compete with other international airlines, many of which, as in the US and Europe, have government subsidies to tide them over their difficulties.

As long as the British airline continues to exist, it is also the case that the financial oligarchy will continue to reap the interest on its £6 billion of debt. But it appears that British Airways stands or falls on its own merits. Meanwhile, while the global airlines struggle against the falling rate of profit, and the top echelons continue to rake in their dividends and interest and pocket their fabulous salaries and bonuses, not only are the workers the first to suffer, but the fabric of society itself goes further into crisis.

A "CHEK Action Day" is being organised at St George's Area, Canterbury, from 10am – 4.30pm on Saturday, February 23. A People’s March will be held at 11.30am under the slogan: "Save A&E at K&C". A Mass Lobby of Parliament is also being held on Monday, March 25. For further details e-mail: webmaster@chek.org.net, or visit the CHEK website at chek.org.uk.

CHEK points out that none of the options A-D being presented in a consultation document for the changes for local acute health services allow for the retention of full A&E services at the Kent and Canterbury Hospital. None of the options retain the Cancer Centre in East Kent. There would be no haematology, no in-patient surgery, no high dose chemotherapy, and only low grade radiotherapy. This will mean that patients needing complex treatments for cancer will have to travel out of this area, either to Maidstone or the new hospital to be built at Pembury or even as far as London.

We feel that this is a very inhuman way in which to treat the sickest patients in our community, CHEK says. How will relatives be able to visit them regularly at such a distressing time in their lives if they are so far away from home?

CHEK in association with the Kent Messenger Group have come up with another option. Option E is:

* Keep at K&CH, a full 24hr emergency service, including an intensive care unit, renal medicine and paediatrics, general medicine, general surgery, services for older people, trauma and orthopaedics, vascular surgery, cardiology, consultant-led obstetrics, a full Cancer Centre (including oncology, haematology, in-patient radiotherapy, high dose and complex chemotherapy for rare tumours), and neurology;

* Also keep medical emergency admissions, a coronary care unit, critical care unit, acute rehabilitation of older people, planned hip/knee replacements and breast and urology surgery in all East Kent;

* Under Option E, K&CH would have a minimum of 315 beds.

A letter from has been sent by the Canterbury and Coastal Primary Care Group to Alan Milburn, Secretary of State for Health, signed by almost all of the PCG’s GPs – in excess of 80 names.

The letter dramatically reinforces recent comments by two top Kent & Canterbury Hospital surgeons that the system is staring catastrophe in the face. The two-page letter expresses "a sense of increasing frustration and sadness" that services are in a state that "has never been worse".

"Any of us could provide you with a substantial list of examples of poor quality hospital care’. However the criticisms are not aimed at clinical staff who are working with "admirable dedication".

The letter also pays tribute to K&C surgeons, Richard Collins and Bob Heddle for having the courage to go public about the dire situation in the A&Es for the "personal and professional risks" they have taken by speaking out. The letter highlights five principal concerns:

* Long trolley waits;

* Waiting lists for elective surgery;

* Multiple cancellations of operations;

* Long waiting times for outpatient appointments;

* Inappropriate discharge of patients causing a rise in re-admission.

The GPs ask why has this "unacceptable situation arisen?" They pinpoint the cause as the planned re-configuration of hospital services in East Kent, which includes the downgrading of the Kent & Canterbury Hospital, and ask "why this has not been property re-appraised", in the light of the passage of time and the National Beds Inquiry. "We are aware of the carefully worded arguments... but neither we nor our 170,000 patients find these convincing". "In particular, the plan to remove full A&E services seems downright dangerous."

"The current plans for hospital services in East Kent are, in our view, unsafe, unequal and unsustainable".

CHEK Chairman David Shortt commented: "This is the first time that members of the local Primary Care fraternity have publicly entered the debate about the re-configuration. The uncompromising language will leave Mr Milburn in no doubt whatsoever about the strength of feeling and desperation the PCG feel that East Kent Hospital Trust managers are failing to deliver even the minimum of standards expected for their patients."

Deputy Chairman Ken Rogers commented: "The writing must surely be on the wall for this Trust administration. For 18 months, they have appeared to sit idly by whilst services deteriorate day by day."

The CACC (Campaign Against Criminalising Communities, part of the Coalition Against the Terrorism Acts) has issued an appeal to: Stop the War on Dissent! It read as follows:

The "war on terrorism" is also a war against dissent – against our capacity to resist injustice and oppression. Before September 11, the anti-globalisation movement was mobilising large numbers of people world-wide against rulers who attempt to impose privatisation, trade liberalisation, poverty and war. Those rulers moved quickly to exploit the September 11 attacks, in order to fragment and marginalise us. They have sought to polarise the population into "us" supporting them against "the terrorists".

Long beforehand, the UK government's Terrorism Act 2000 had already broadened the definition of terrorism – to include simply "the threat" of "serious damage to property", in ways "designed to influence the government" for a "political cause". In effect, that law created new crimes of association, suspicion and anticipation. It potentially stigmatises a wide range of legitimate political activity as "terrorism", which then becomes subject to attacks on civil liberties, such as detention without adequate legal representation; anyone can be held without charge for up to 7 days.

Now the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) 2001 has gone much further. It authorises greater police powers and even imposes duties on us. The Act means:

· Non-UK citizens can be interned for an indefinite period without trial or adequate judicial scrutiny;

· Communications providers must store users' data (e.g. webpages visited), so that it can be retrospectively handed over to the police anytime in the future;

· Confidential information (e.g. tax and health details) held by government departments may be pooled and given to the police, even to other authorities anywhere in the world;

· Everyone has the duty to inform the police about anyone "suspected" of committing or planning "terrorist" activity (as broadly defined by the 2000 Act);

· Protestors may be required to remove masks in any area where a crime may be committed.

This new law serves to terrorise dissent and to promote paranoia. Overall its measures establish a permanent state of emergency – in our minds, as well as in law. Already fearful of follow-up attacks after September 11, we are encouraged to fear foreigners as mortally dangerous. As well as non-UK citizens, a much wider range of people can be arrested and intimidated, merely on grounds of suspected or anticipated activities.

Such powers could deter protest, regardless of how few people are prosecuted in the courts. Even when people could be arrested under the ordinary criminal law, the police may use the Terrorism Acts in order to justify their new powers as necessary to protect us. Before these new laws were enacted, the authorities already had adequate legal powers to protect the public from organised violence, but instead they have imposed indefinite detention as a substitute for evidence.

Going beyond police powers, moreover, the Terrorism Acts lead us to internalise our own handcuffs, muzzles and blindfolds. We are meant to fear any involvement in political protest, lest the police later challenge us for not having given them information – or lest others give the police information on us. We may be pressed to become compulsory grasses, even to inform on activities which haven't happened.

The UK laws go much further than the draft EU directive, which defines terrorism as "unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act". Under its "anti-terrorist roadmap", the EU is planning to set up databases on protestors and foreigners. Similar measures are being developed on a global scale.

This "anti-terrorism" is a political strategy to fragment and infantile us, so that we distrust other people, while treating the state as a benign protector. Unsurprisingly, the law exempts UK officials for prosecution regarding chemical and biological weapons. It also exempts the terrorist activities of the UK government, e.g. in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as its complicity with state terrorism in places such as Turkey and Israel's occupation of Palestine.

The CACC appeal calls on people to support for these demands:

1. We reject the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000.

2. We demand the repeal of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the ATCSA 2001.

3. Everyone must be treated as innocent until proven guilty. No detention without charge. Restore the right of habeas corpus.

4. We defend the democratic freedom to dissent and to organise ourselves against injustice without being criminalised.

5. We oppose crimes against humanity, regardless of who (or what government) commits them.

For further information contact the CACC c/o Haldane Society, Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, WC1R 4RL, visit the website at www.cacc.org.uk or ring Estella on 020 7586 5892. Replies to the appeal may be e-mailed to knklondon@gn.apc.org.

The Korea Friendship and Solidarity Campaign (KFSC) held a meeting on Thursday, February 7, entitled Prospects for Peace and Reunification in Korea. We reproduce herewith the contribution given on this occasion by Chris Coleman, National Spokesperson of RCPB(ML).

Comrades and Friends: It is of course always important to meet to express solidarity with the DPRK. This is what our campaign has been set up to do, and has been the concern of other organisations and individuals over many years. But it does seem particularly significant and timely to do so when, following George W Bush’s remarks this week claiming North Korea to be part of an "axis of evil", defence of that country, of its sovereignty, of its right to follow its own chosen system, of the right of the Korean people as a whole to reunite their country peacefully and independently, moves into the very front line of opposition to the entire Anglo-American "war on terror". We are thus particularly pleased to be joining other friends of Korea in discussing the prospects for peace and reunification in Korea as well as celebrating the 60^th birthday of the great leader Kim Jong Il. And we are pleased too to join in welcoming to London our new comrade delegates to the International Maritime Organisation.

It was only a year and a half ago that we were meeting to celebrate – and rightly so – the momentous developments towards reunification represented by the historic North-South Summit and the Joint Declaration of June 15, 2000. Other important developments followed, including the release of the long-term prisoners, the appearance of Kim Jong Il on TV in South Korea and the visit of Madeleine Albright to the DPRK. We said at the time that these developments were irreversible, and this would still seem to be the case; their effect remains. But the hostile policy adopted immediately on his election by Bush, the reversion to Cold War rhetoric and military threats, froze these developments and created new dangers to be overcome before further progress can be made. And of course since then we see the new offensive of the US against the world’s people launched since the unforgivable events of September 11, themselves a clear result of US foreign policy, including the aggression against Afghanistan, the threats of military intervention against 30 or more countries, the setting aside of all the principles of international relations laid down at the end of the Second World War, the attack on the very concept of the rule of law. And now the direct threat of imminent military action against Iran, Iraq and North Korea which even the so-called dove Colin Powell claimed yesterday was not mere rhetoric but a response to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them – despite in North Korea’s case the Framework Document signed by the US and DPRK as long ago as 1994 settling the nuclear issue and the DPRK having unilaterally suspended missile testing last year.

And then we have the British government which has not even changed! We have the same Blair Labour government who established diplomatic relations with the DPRK in October 2000 – and which we rightly applauded for that, even if the remarks of Robin Cook at the time suggested they were more interested in interference than genuine ties of mutual respect and equality. We have the same Blair government taking up the same hostile attitude to North Korea as George Bush, as evidenced in the Foreign Office report of the recent visit to Britain by the Vice Foreign Minister of the DPRK which, as one comrade remarked, was more typical of countries breaking relations than establishing them. All of which of course fits in with the shameful role taken up by the Blair government of chief collaborator and cheerleader for US aggression and threats to the peace and security of any nation which does not bow to the American dictate. And this of course is not to mention Britain’s own separate reactionary plans for re-establishing a colonial presence in Africa, criminalising dissent and attacking the rights of people at home.

In such dangerous circumstances, first of all, it seems to us extremely important that all progressive people give their full support to what is known as the "Army-first" policy of the DPRK, the policy which has built the DPRK into an impregnable fortress against which any power which attempts aggression will find it has made a big mistake. We must condemn the bellicose threats of the US and British governments against the DPRK and all other countries. And we think all friends of Korea have important work to do in making the defence of the DPRK an issue in the growing anti-war movement.

These new military threats represent a setback to the prospects for peace and reunification in Korea. We are confident however that the firm stand of the DPRK under the leadership of Kim Jong Il – whose 60^th birthday we are honoured to be marking today – and the support and activity of progressive people throughout the world fighting in the common cause will guarantee that this challenge too is met. Thank you.

Cuban President Fidel Castro participated in a lively question-and-answer session before an audience of 5,000 intellectuals, academics and students He stated that there are many gaps in the hegemonic imperialist system and they are continuing to increase. As a result of this, there is an ever greater need to be better informed and to study the course of events, and to transmit and improve ideas. He spoke those words to an audience of 5,000 intellectuals, academics and students at the Karl Marx Theatre during the presentation of Spanish-born French essayist Ignacio Ramonet’s book Propagandas silenciosas (Silent Propaganda). The book is a penetrating and lucid analysis of the imperialist cultural industry’s seductive and manipulative strategies.

President Castro stated that consumer societies are inimitable, and the predominant system is inapplicable and unsustainable. It is constantly showing more visible cracks and contradictions, and has entered into conflict with many countries, with the United Nations and even with its own allies. He added that it is important to promote truth and denounce lies, and information plays a decisive role in that effort.

He congratulated Ramonet on his book, the accompanying lecture and his sincere and honest replies – all of which, indicated Fidel, "enrich our arsenal of ideas". Previously, the Cuban leader referred to the circumstances that prevailed after the September 11 terrorist attacks and Washington’s response of war, thus demonstrating that the imperialists are no longer sure of imposing their hegemony by seduction, and so employ the most brutal force.

Among the guests attending the presentation were Robert Mundell and Joseph Stiglitz, both from the United States and both winners of the Noble Prize in Economic, in 1999 and 2000, respectively.

A few days earlier, the inauguration of the 11th International Book Fair, taking place in Havana, provided the setting for President Fidel Castro to state that the moment has come for the world to demand peace. "We should take note of this occasion in this fortress [San Carlos de la Cabaña, the fair’s venue], because it seems to me that we are seeing something unprecedented," he said in his opening speech to top-level delegations from France (the country of honour this year), Norway and Italy, publishers from 24 participating nations, Cuban writers and intellectuals – including National Literature Prize-winner Miguel Barnet, to whom this year’s fair is also dedicated.

President Castro explained to the visitors that after the 2001 fair, when some 500,000 books were sold in Havana, people all over the island asked what was available for them. This responds to a yearning, a habit acquired during these years of Revolution. "It was an absolutely just demand, and we suggested that the Cuban Book Institute and the Ministry of Culture extend the fair throughout the country." This is why it has spread to 18 cities, with a total of five million books available. Cuba’s head of government highlighted that the nation is now involved with 75 programmes aimed at providing a general integral culture, at very little cost. He commented that it is painful to think how in many countries money for cultural purposes is stolen by corrupt politicians. The first programme to which Fidel Castro referred was the creation nation-wide of book printing facilities, using 15 simple presses (each one costing $11,000 USD), allowing any young poet or writer in any municipality of the country to see his/her books in print.

The president observed that when we talk of artistic talent, the first thing we must ask ourselves is how many people know how to read and write, as "the development of literature depends of the educational level". In that respect, he recalled that in 1959 there was 30% illiteracy in Cuba and that eradicating illiteracy was the first great battle.

He pointed out that today at the fair there are 480 titles written in municipalities throughout the country and printed on inexpensive paper. Thus, nearly 500 authors who presented their books to municipal evaluation commissions were able to get their works published. Fidel Castro announced two other programmes, one for public libraries, 12 of which are already in a trial period and have 1,000 books each, with the objective of having books available near where people live. The other is for community libraries, with the idea that each will include 25 books in the first stage (going up to 300), published on newsprint, including poetry, geography and other genres and themes.

The introduction of computers for elementary and secondary schools, social workers’ schools and University for All (broadcast on television) were programmes also mentioned by Fidel Castro.

Prior to Castro’s speech, French Ambassador Jean Levy had spoken on behalf of his country, proposing a continuation of the co-operation achieved during the fair, which demonstrates the strength and vitality of relations between France and Cuba. Fidel Castro responded to that proposal: "We accept the ambassador’s suggestion to establish lasting co-operation in this area." He added that "we should invite other nations" to participate in that effort.