IAG ha anunciado el término del acuerdo de negocio conjunto entre British Airways y la aerolínea australiana Qantas. Ambas cooperaban en el área comercial en las rutas entre Australia y el Reino Unido desde 1.995. Según ha informado el holding hispano-británico en una comunicación enviada esta mañana a la CNMV, la nueva asociación global de Qantas con Emirates es el motivo del final de esta relación comercial.
Willie Walsh, consejero delegado de IAG, ha señalado que el final del negocio conjunto entre la aerolínea británica y la australiana se está haciendo “de forma amigable”. El hombre fuerte del consorcio del que también forma parte la española Iberia ha subrayado que “esta es una pequeña parte de nuestra red global y este acuerdo de terminación se ajusta a los cambios en nuestra estrategia global”.
Además, Walsh ha avanzado que “Asia se ha convertido en un mercado clave para IAG y estamos sosteniendo conversaciones con un grupo de compañías sobre las opciones alternativas para nosotros”.
Tanto IAG como Qantas forman parte de la alianza Oneworld, por lo que “continuarán trabajando de forma conjunta” y “a través de acuerdos bilaterales de código compartido”. El CEO de IAG ha recalcado que la ruptura del acuerdo de negocio conjunto en los vuelos entre el Reino Unido y Australia “no tendrá ningún impacto negativo en los objetivos financieros” del grupo.
Por su parte, Alan Joyce, consejero delegado de Qantas, ha explicado que “las condiciones de operación globales han cambiado y la asociación con Emirates es la estrategia correcta para Qantas”. Aún así, ha destacado que “a lo largo de estos 17 años, el acuerdo de negocio conjunto con British Airways ha sido central en la red de Qantas”.
Norwegian vuelve: reabre su base en Estocolmo
Iberia cancela toda la operativa en Israel hasta febrero de 2025
‘Caso Begoña’: el apoyo de La Caixa fue muy inferior al de Air Europa
Cerco a los pisos turísticos en Madrid: listado de las calles afectadas
Cinco años en un hotel sin pagar
Cargando ...
Cuba: temor turístico con Marco Rubio al elegirle Trump
Iberia volará a América en 2025 con ocho aviones de un pasillo
Tulum refuerza la seguridad con 15 nuevas patrullas equipadas
Cancún: policías serán controlados con cámaras en sus solapas
James Joyce, irish born, graduated at the trinity college, worked at aer lingus, firmly steering the wheel to capsize quantas, huge loss as result.
Willie Walsh, iris born, attended at the trinity college, worked at aer lingus, firmly steering the wheel to capsize iberia, huge loss as result.
Whats wrong with ireland, the trinity college and aer lingus?
Do they share plans? Did they collaborated on their college thesis?
Why the rest of air groups do not follow their modus operandi and bet for the future of their enterprise instead of ruinning it
I really don't know, but what a coincidence!!!!!
Willie Walsh, as Aer Lingus CEO, downsized Aer Lingus long time ago and brought it back to the profitability.
As he wanted to list it on the Stock market and was pushed back by the Board, he resigned. After that, Ryanair bought a big stake in Aer Lingus.
Willie Walsh is tackling IB issues in the same way he did in Aer Lingus, and in the same way most CEOs do in unprofitable companies. It´s not something new at all.
Really?
I guess that what he is doing is trying to drive ba to the benefits road using ib as a source of capital to reduce ba's enourmous financial debt.
As a ba worker I'd be glad, but parasiting ib for ba welfare does no delight me as a spanish citizen.
Besides this is not ethical. Merger agreements did not entitle him for so.
Regards.
I can´t see how BA can benefit from IB´s profit, when IB hasn´t been able to deliver operative profit within the last 4 or 5 years (all was due to extraordinary results). IB is running out of cash because of investments and because of the the big loses that have to be offset.
IB will have to realise sooner than later that it has structural problems and blaming the other IAG Opco is not going to solve nothing. If IB were now on a stand alone basis and not merged, it´s share probably would be under 1 euro and would be taken over by LH, AF... or whoever.
It is a shame to hear day and night all my colleagues to show off, and argumenting that 13 years of benefits are enough to be a successful company in the future... I´ll make my point very clear: WE CHANGE OR WE DIE (with or withoug merger).
One thing I agree with you, a change is necessary. Ib has an oversized structure, consecuence of its public past. Thats a fact and no discuss about it.
But none of the mesures needed to downsize ib structure have been taken, au contraire, smalling fleet but untouching managing infinite departments have worsten the situation.
The coup of grace is creating a self called low cost, that redundants structures and departments. Airline That of course assumes all the incomes but none of the expenses.
As I said at the beggining a change is needed, a change that to be efective, needs employees complicity, not their oposition. Every day I hear the claims of all my colleagues (from every field, not just flight) claiming that with this staff there is no future ahead, that we are being sold out for ba's benefit.
Yoy say that this is not true....I wish you are right, but all company worker's moral is at their knees. Good job!!!! Something Unprecedented has happened!!! Everybody agree that ib is being slaughtered!!!! Well done!!!
Confrontation was not the good path, see how air france and lufthansa are dealing with their employees!
Reached this point, I am pretty sure that being bought for one euro by lufthansa would have been better tha loosing 2.500 million euros.
To end and Summarise, yes, a chance to survive is needed, an honest and truthful plan, not this copy past that Gives away iberia's bests assets and dooms everybody's future but for the ones with golden parachute.
In spite of disagreeing our points of view I appreciate much we keep discussing with out falling in disrespect.
Thanks.
(when I call for dialogue I mean that!!! Be able to present statements politely)
Again best regards.
It´s being a fantastic and healthy debate (very rare over here by the way...).
In the first paragraph you say that IB HQs departments are oversized. I would really like to know in which facts or metrics you are basing your opinions. My opinion is, on the contrary, that the size is roughly right, but IB does not have the ability to retain the talent.
IB labour agreements don´t incentivise employees to entrepreneur or have ambition. Progression is very limited and capped, because the model of retribution is very rigid (unions call it stability, but many young talented people end up leaving the company to other companies with better conditions). Labour agreements ultraactivity kept more or less untached this legacy in some areas, increasing in this way unitary costs.
It has been quite a bit of work trying to agree with the unions more flexible conditions for a very long time (main issues were encountered with Sepla by IB managers). This is not something new. I trully believe in dialog, but I think that if after certain time it is not possible to reach an agreement, something else has to be done. I would forget about the legality of the action at this point (the courts are for that). And don´t get me wrong. I am not blaming any part in particular. The cost of not taking action can mean going bust. And that is something that shareholders cannot afford.
Regarding IB employees perception, it is clear that there is fear and concerns. Nobody knows what is the future and people tends to give credit to the words that match their preconceptions. Because of that, it is critical to tackle this swiftly, restructure and let the rest of the people to focus on their jobs.
With respects to the eventual future of IB, if I were shareholder, I would never let it go bust and being sold to LH without splitting and getting my cut of the cash (La Caixa did it with Repsol. They needed fresh cash and got Repsol´s cash through dividend). So I am afraid that´s not quite an alternative.
Finally, I disagree that IB´s best assets are threatened by BA. There has been some criticism because of IB stopping JNB, FOR, REC, COR... These routes lost a shedload of money. And IB did the right thing increasing capacity in other markets with better perspectives (CCS, SCL...).
Happy to continue with this productive debate and looking forward to hearing from you...
Dear unknown sir,
I consider that ib is oversized based in various concepts. Employees/aeroplane ratio, organigram analisys and more than a decade of working in and on it.
Labour agreements too tighten... If managers do not comply with them! They cannot be tight or unleashed, they are ommited.
Remind that the first to throw the towel and abbandon negotiation meetings were the ceo's band. So burdly and roughtly manners were showed that even goverment executives have denied to attend him.
Also who's band started sending officials with no real executive power to decide to union meetings?
We can camuflage some time but not hide for ever some realities. Premium costumers database to london, systems management to london, cargo to london, even ib's reserve cash to london... Too much london for an equal partnership, don't you think?
I am also amused that equivalent officials of Ba and Iag possess only 2 yrs bond after contract conclusion and our beloved leaders aT ib are awarded with double of it.
To keep loyal to my rational and comprenhensive spirit I cannot deny hat perhaps things could have been done better from pilot's union side, but things could not be done worst from top managers side.
In spite of all passed, all said, all suffered,our hand keeps open and extended. Will them shake it and start from scratch or keep this suicide adventure on?
We'll see.
Dear sir,
The last time I checked the number of employees adjusted to the capacity and average length (2010), this parameter indicated that IB had slightly better ratio than the rest of the big carriers (AF, BA, LH...). So, because of this, the number of employees may be ok, but I think the problem is the productivity (the revenues are far below the competitors').
Regarding the discusion on the labour agreements, I wouldn´t want the debate to get bogged down by their compliance. I believe the Courts are to determine that, and if there has been any abuse, judges will take action.
Looking at the negotiations, I confess I haven´t been part of them (that´s not my job). But I can accept and understand that a particular party leaves the conversations. First of all, we don´t have two equal parties. Because of the laws in Spain until not a lot of time ago, expired labour agreements still were the basis for a particular collective. That gives a very strong position to one of the parties when it is time to ask for concesions. On these premises, when time is running against IB managers, it is not acceptable for the managers to dialogue ad infinitum. And if at a certain point, no consensus has been reached, they have the responsibility to look for alternatives. I can understand that in this situation, both parties have acted on the best of their interests, but this is my humble opinion. I am very pesimistic on IB and the pilots to get agreement, because the minimum acceptable positions are too much far away.
Regarding what you point out on hand-overs to London from Madrid, just to mention that IAG Cargo has taken over former BA and IB structures. It is not true that IB premium cust. database or system management has been taken away, and it is not true that the cash has been sent to London (fyi, BA PLC doesn´t have a new bank account with 2500 million euros, just check the minutes of the Board meetings. This decision could never be passed without the approval of the shareholders, the true owners of IAG).
I can´t comment on the retribution of BA and IB directors, so, nothing to add at the moment, but I will check it.
To summarise, I reckon IB has much important challenges than the merger: Low Cost, AVE, LAN-TAM, Avianca, Spanish depression, fuel cost, AENA's tax increase,... All these factors have hit IB in a short period of time, and are the main reasons of the big losses. IB Cash can´t just fill all these gaps, and it is through a deep restructuring that we can overcome this situation. If this cannot be agreed with the employees, IB will be shut down and it will not matter at all who was the guilty. It will be a collective responsibility of all of us. Shareholders won´t be patient with us forever. They have the money, and the world is full of good opportunities to have to stand with endless discussions. To be honest, I can´t see any other scenario.
Dear sir, I really envy your english Language command. In spite I speak it fluently your written competence overtakes mines. After singing your praises let's focus in our Wotrhwile chat.
I am affraid that ib ceo and president where not interested in matching and agreement at all.
They faked good will and diplomacy Until the aftermath of the merger. Then masks fell.
If you and I, from oppossite corners, I Have the feeling could reach a deal that would not make us happy but neither displeasure, why professional negotiators could not?
Because it was not in the budged or agenda.
That's my intuition of course.
If a major Restructuring has to be done ( we both agree) as more collaborative the workers would the better.
Air france is counting with its pilots for future plans.
Lufthanse is counting with its pilots for its future plans.
Iberia Despises its pilots.
What a contrast, Huh?
As before glad to exchance opinions with you.
Dear sir,
you are extremely kind and I don´t deserve such praises at all. I am more than happy just to have the right level of competency to explain my point of view and understand other´s opinions. In our case, our english levels are fulfilling its purpose: communication.
You explain that Mr. Sánchez Lozano and Mr. Vázquez unveiled their plans after the merger and showed their hidden agenda. I must disagree. Mr. Vázquez released a communication in Iberiavión some time before the merger warning against falling behind in competitiveness and some preliminary studies pointed out there was huge room for improvement, specially in handling. It was also said that there could be up to 5000 severances if we couldn´t improve margins. So, definitely, not something new from this management team.
My opinion is that the management team came over with a pre-set idea and they are trying to develop their cost cutting oriented agenda, either through severances or either through outsourcing (IBexpress). The degradation of the competitive situation just made it worse and speeded up their plans. Bear in mind that the managers are on the same page as Bankia, and Bankia paid a lot of money for a control stake, so it is logic from them to squeeze IB costs so they can get over the fall in value of their shares.
Why do Mr. Vázquez and Mr. Sánchez dismiss unions? My personal view is that IB labour disputes never fully stopped. There has been an average of one strike per year in the last 10 years. We could argue whose fault is, but that is not the point. The fact is that the image that IB projects outside is the image of a conflictive company, that can´t deal with their internal issues. It does not surprise me at all that these guys have gone for the hard approach as dialogue has not delivered substantial benefits so far (again, this is just my explanation, not a justification).
If this is the right approach, time will tell.
Finally, with respect to the examples you mention, again, each company has a different reality and has to face their own challenges. However, LH is struggling now with their Cabin Crew staff, and BA went through the same case 2 years ago... So, it is quite obvious what the trend is (and will be?) in the european carriers for the next decade...
Yours sincerely
XXX
Annex X Obliged Consensus with pilot's union to create any subsidiary. That was mandatory, not optional.
Directors Obviated this Obligation.
Thus pilot's Convened strikes, obviously.
Therefore goverment disposed an Arbitration award.
Directors obviated it again and Have refuted it to court.
Meanwhile a judge final statement is set is In force, they keep disobeying it.
Not an exemplary law obedience record?
Those are facts. Not opinions.
Annex X is the key point of the debate. IB lawyers interprete it in different terms than Sepla´s lawyers. If Sepla was so sure about the legality, why didn´t they go to the Courts instead of using strikes?
Because of the ambiguity of the Annex X and the wording, none of both parts was sure to go the Courts, and it was IB that took the step after the arbitration was not favourable for them (we may assume it would have happened the other way round if the arbitration hadn´t had put the condition of having a same staff for IB and IBexpress).
I am amazed how you are so sure of your own words, when lawyers have been discussing this for ages and it will start in October the process before the Audiencia Nacional... So amazing profile yours, being knowledgeable of so many and varied topics (aviation, laws...).
Arbitration output is obliged to be implemented, but it can be challenged on the negotiation table (as it is regarded in this mechanism).
Let´s wait until the legal technics determine it clearly.
Yes, multidisciplinary attitudes. In spite what iberia's managers think about their pilots we are plenty of outstanding people. Best sellers writers, recon historians, Phisics, doctors, lawers, geologists, a lot of b.d's, m.d's even ph.d's.
We are not fools and we do this job because we love it.
My apologies for the innecesary sarcasm. That was something out of the line from me. I beg your pardon and invite you to continue with the debate.
My point was esentially that it is not so clear the legality of the Annex X, and I would leave this to the judges. If some of the parties had been extremely sure, it would have gone to Court long time ago.
I don´t deny the intelligence of any part, but, isn´t it a paradox, that, being so clever both parties we are stuck in a deadlock?
I honestly don´t know how we can´t get around this situation in acceptable terms for both sides.
The future, without any question, seems to be very worrying...
Yes. Future is jeopardized because one part has unilateraly decided not to count with the other. Never in iberia's Pilot's union history It has been A leadership so negotiative and willing to achive Long term Deals. We are 110% sure of our statements. Why strikes instead of courts? Because courts are slow and determine guiltiness or not but do not protect against the harm done meanwhile they deliverate. Imagine we plantif, iberia managers Develope ibx at full, after 5 years half of ib pilots are fired, then 7 yrs later a judge says we where right. How to arrange harm done? Imposible! If half point it is not reached Now it will be not posible afterwards.
Sorry to repeat myself. Restructuring? Yes. Labor agreement's modifications and higher flexibility? Yes. Low cost improvement? Yes. Long haul improvement? Yes.
But with us!!!!
For us is not negotiable to cut pilots careers. We possess first officers with more of 15 yrs experience at ib, no fault records, high experienced, offering to work at ibx at lower costs than actual ibx captains, that come through no intense competitive sellection, with no record of their attitudes, at higher salaries than proposed by us....and they are more desiderable because they are not from ib???? Thats an insult!!!!!!!!
Besides all this logic, strikes according spanish and european laws are as legal as any other mechanism.
And do not worry. No offense at all.