Gate Gourmet - Am I Missing Something?
#1
Gate Gourmet - Am I Missing Something?
Gate Gourmet sacked their staff
BA employees (some of them) went on strike in sympathy
Strike ended but GG staff still remain sacked
GG are now DEMANDING from BA that they pay them more money so that they don't put their own company (GG) into administration & have given them an ultimatum?
If I was BA, I'd say - "Go Play With Yourselves" & find a new catering company - one that can manage it's own affairs & stick to it's written contracts.
Have I missed something?
BA employees (some of them) went on strike in sympathy
Strike ended but GG staff still remain sacked
GG are now DEMANDING from BA that they pay them more money so that they don't put their own company (GG) into administration & have given them an ultimatum?
If I was BA, I'd say - "Go Play With Yourselves" & find a new catering company - one that can manage it's own affairs & stick to it's written contracts.
Have I missed something?
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Between the Fens and the Wolds.
Posts: 3,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm wondering where the employment race equality is with all these GG employees. ?? Seems to be somewhat of an imbalance there.
IMHO of course.
IMHO of course.
#4
Part of it that the various catering companies have very close, even partnership type deals with the airlines.
There is not just the spare capacity in the industry/system that would be instantly available.
Otherwise the airlines would be paying for all the surplus infrastructure and they dont llike doing stuff like that.
GG probably had some sort of exclusivity type deal with BA, therefore completely dependant on them. BA in return get good service and cheap food, all v important in the price war with Easyjet etc.
I am sure thay are in talks with other suppliers. Wouldn't surprise me if other catering companies took on some of the sacked GG employees to do the same job.
Asif
There is not just the spare capacity in the industry/system that would be instantly available.
Otherwise the airlines would be paying for all the surplus infrastructure and they dont llike doing stuff like that.
GG probably had some sort of exclusivity type deal with BA, therefore completely dependant on them. BA in return get good service and cheap food, all v important in the price war with Easyjet etc.
I am sure thay are in talks with other suppliers. Wouldn't surprise me if other catering companies took on some of the sacked GG employees to do the same job.
Asif
#6
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem that BA may have screwed GG to the floor on the price for their contract. This is not uncommon big firm bully boy tactics as practiced by many supermarket chains. Either that or GG have failed to realise what it would cost to administer the contract.
Last edited by MJW; 23 August 2005 at 08:09 AM. Reason: poor grammar, C minus. See me.
#7
I think it is more involved than that. BA takes 100% of GG business output BA then the turn the screws on pricing forcing GG to cut costs year on year.
Ultimately GG has been squeezed so hard the pips have come out by way of £40 million a year losses for GG who are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Rather inventive solution they have come up with. Sack all the expensive staff and ship in cheap labour from poland etc. Keeps co going for a little while longer. Costs UK Ltd though with additional dole payments hence higher taxes for the rest of us but WGAF.
Alternative is
"A fair days work for a fair days pay"
Solution :
GG re-employ some/all sacked staff
BA and GG renegotiate pricing to reduce / eliminate £40 mio pr year losses
BA re price flights to recoup £40 mio off passengers.
even assuming 20 million passengers a year which I think is probably very low that equates to £2 per passenger.
When you are dealing with very large numbers - very small %'s make a big difference - Devil in the detail.
Ultimately GG has been squeezed so hard the pips have come out by way of £40 million a year losses for GG who are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Rather inventive solution they have come up with. Sack all the expensive staff and ship in cheap labour from poland etc. Keeps co going for a little while longer. Costs UK Ltd though with additional dole payments hence higher taxes for the rest of us but WGAF.
Alternative is
"A fair days work for a fair days pay"
Solution :
GG re-employ some/all sacked staff
BA and GG renegotiate pricing to reduce / eliminate £40 mio pr year losses
BA re price flights to recoup £40 mio off passengers.
even assuming 20 million passengers a year which I think is probably very low that equates to £2 per passenger.
When you are dealing with very large numbers - very small %'s make a big difference - Devil in the detail.
Trending Topics
#9
Puff - you are missing something (other than the screws we all know about ) - Gate Gourmet make something in the region of 30000 meals a day for BA in Heathrow. That is about 10 million a year. Thanks to Easyjet and Ryanair, BA can only afford to pay GG about 2 quid less than it costs GG to produce the meal. If BA pull the rug from GG, they won't find anyone else in the UK to provide those numbers of meals at those prices. If they don't find a replacement, they will have moved into direct competition with Easyjet and Ryanair, providing 'no frills' air transport.
The reason that easyjet, ryanair etc don't offer many if any flights from heathrow is that BA have been prepared to pay much higher landing fees for Heathrow. The low cost operators operate from the other three airports at much lower cost, and therefore much cheaper ticket price. BA can't compete on fare prices with the low cost airliners and still use heathrow. Heathrow can't lose BA and still operate at a profit. London/UK INC can't let its biggest and busiest airport go bust - that is mostly why BA can't tell GG to **** off and wise up
HTH
(Also, if Heathrow decrease the landing fares to allow BA to pay GG cost+%, easyjet and ryanair will steal the thunder and still beat BA on Heathrow fares)
The reason that easyjet, ryanair etc don't offer many if any flights from heathrow is that BA have been prepared to pay much higher landing fees for Heathrow. The low cost operators operate from the other three airports at much lower cost, and therefore much cheaper ticket price. BA can't compete on fare prices with the low cost airliners and still use heathrow. Heathrow can't lose BA and still operate at a profit. London/UK INC can't let its biggest and busiest airport go bust - that is mostly why BA can't tell GG to **** off and wise up
HTH
(Also, if Heathrow decrease the landing fares to allow BA to pay GG cost+%, easyjet and ryanair will steal the thunder and still beat BA on Heathrow fares)
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Puff The Magic Wagon!
Gate Gourmet sacked their staff
BA employees (some of them) went on strike in sympathy
Strike ended but GG staff still remain sacked
GG are now DEMANDING from BA that they pay them more money so that they don't put their own company (GG) into administration & have given them an ultimatum?
If I was BA, I'd say - "Go Play With Yourselves" & find a new catering company - one that can manage it's own affairs & stick to it's written contracts.
Have I missed something?
BA employees (some of them) went on strike in sympathy
Strike ended but GG staff still remain sacked
GG are now DEMANDING from BA that they pay them more money so that they don't put their own company (GG) into administration & have given them an ultimatum?
If I was BA, I'd say - "Go Play With Yourselves" & find a new catering company - one that can manage it's own affairs & stick to it's written contracts.
Have I missed something?
dl
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They outsourced it because they fly planes not cook meals, most Airlines buy their food in but for a few huge American loss makers. BA buy in most services. But they really should have two suppliers.......... but they did sell the business to GG in the first place...
Be interested to know what the wages are at GG as the employees didnt look well paid, is it below the minimum wage somehow? Not many white faces in the line up!
Be interested to know what the wages are at GG as the employees didnt look well paid, is it below the minimum wage somehow? Not many white faces in the line up!
#13
Originally Posted by fast bloke
Thanks to Easyjet and Ryanair, BA can only afford to pay GG about 2 quid less than it costs GG to produce the meal.
BA *could* easily afford to pay GG the going rate because it is actually making good profits (415Mio pre-tax in 2004, 124Mio Q1 2005). Higher fuel surcharges are quoted in the press as being good for the company...
On the other hand, if the management of GG accepted a contract that gives them a loss in the first place, then *they* are the ones who should be fired and not the low-paid grunts!
Personally I would never fly BA again after having had a bad experience with them years ago whilst flying ZRH-LHR on business - they put business passengers on stand-by because the business cabin was full owing to upgraded econ class - because they had massively overbooked econ class of course. That's laughable.
Suresh
#14
Originally Posted by Suresh
On the other hand, if the management of GG accepted a contract that gives them a loss in the first place, then *they* are the ones who should be fired and not the low-paid grunts!
#15
Originally Posted by Suresh
Don't agree with that statement.
BA *could* easily afford to pay GG
Suresh
BA *could* easily afford to pay GG
Suresh
It seems that the strike cost BA in excess of 50 million. Might have been a good idea to sort it sooner
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hampshire / Val d'Isere / Verbier
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Puff The Magic Wagon!
If I was BA, I'd say - "Go Play With Yourselves" & find a new catering company - one that can manage it's own affairs & stick to it's written contracts.
Have I missed something?
Have I missed something?
Basically if another co. wanted the business then *all* of the associated assets would transfer - machines, warehouses AND people on the same T&Cs and rates of pay.
So given that the deal loses £25m p.a., would you want the business?!?!?
DPat
#18
The people with the blinkers on in all this is the TGWU, again. They just expect GG to take on all the 'sacked' workers. To do what? Make them all redundant again at 5pm? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way that GG shed it's staff, it's stupid of the TGWU to think that it can just afford to take them all back on again when it risks going into administration at 5pm anyway.
Bliming unions as usual seeing only one side of a multisided coin. Tony Woodley can't see the economics involved and thinks it's a simple case of nasty cash rich company vs innocent workers. And he claims they have public support! They don't have mine, that's for sure. Probably most people on here have been made redundant through no fault of their own, myself included. It's awful, it's a kick in the nuts, but you pick yourself up and you go and find another job. Picketing outside the company gates that may not even exist in 24 hours is pointless. Better off channelling those energies elsewhere.
Simon.
Bliming unions as usual seeing only one side of a multisided coin. Tony Woodley can't see the economics involved and thinks it's a simple case of nasty cash rich company vs innocent workers. And he claims they have public support! They don't have mine, that's for sure. Probably most people on here have been made redundant through no fault of their own, myself included. It's awful, it's a kick in the nuts, but you pick yourself up and you go and find another job. Picketing outside the company gates that may not even exist in 24 hours is pointless. Better off channelling those energies elsewhere.
Simon.
#19
Originally Posted by DPat
Yes, you all seem to have missed something - UK and European employment law that goes by the name of TUPE in the UK or ARD in Europe - Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment or Acquired Rights Directive
Basically if another co. wanted the business then *all* of the associated assets would transfer - machines, warehouses AND people on the same T&Cs and rates of pay.
So given that the deal loses £25m p.a., would you want the business?!?!?
DPat
Basically if another co. wanted the business then *all* of the associated assets would transfer - machines, warehouses AND people on the same T&Cs and rates of pay.
So given that the deal loses £25m p.a., would you want the business?!?!?
DPat
Then there is no transfer of anything to anyone - that's what happened to Rover. Why take on the last companies disasterous problems.
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SD
The people with the blinkers on in all this is the TGWU, again. They just expect GG to take on all the 'sacked' workers. To do what? Make them all redundant again at 5pm? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way that GG shed it's staff, it's stupid of the TGWU to think that it can just afford to take them all back on again when it risks going into administration at 5pm anyway.
Bliming unions as usual seeing only one side of a multisided coin. Tony Woodley can't see the economics involved and thinks it's a simple case of nasty cash rich company vs innocent workers. And he claims they have public support! They don't have mine, that's for sure. Probably most people on here have been made redundant through no fault of their own, myself included. It's awful, it's a kick in the nuts, but you pick yourself up and you go and find another job. Picketing outside the company gates that may not even exist in 24 hours is pointless. Better off channelling those energies elsewhere.
Simon.
Bliming unions as usual seeing only one side of a multisided coin. Tony Woodley can't see the economics involved and thinks it's a simple case of nasty cash rich company vs innocent workers. And he claims they have public support! They don't have mine, that's for sure. Probably most people on here have been made redundant through no fault of their own, myself included. It's awful, it's a kick in the nuts, but you pick yourself up and you go and find another job. Picketing outside the company gates that may not even exist in 24 hours is pointless. Better off channelling those energies elsewhere.
Simon.
Puff, you missed the original reason they were sacked. Unofficial, and unlawful strike.
I wonder what Woodley will be saying when there are 2,000 of them out of a job because of the bloody mindedness of the TGWU?
#21
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,708
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
I reckon they should just stop serving food on short haul flights and they would save a packet and be able to pay GG the going rate for the meals they serve on medium and long haul flights.
I mean is it really necessary on a 2-3 hour flight to feed the passangers? I don't think so!
I flew from heathrow to Dublin and got fed and that was only a 45 minute flight, seems abit of a waste of time and money to me.
I mean is it really necessary on a 2-3 hour flight to feed the passangers? I don't think so!
I flew from heathrow to Dublin and got fed and that was only a 45 minute flight, seems abit of a waste of time and money to me.
Last edited by Wurzel; 23 August 2005 at 09:47 AM.
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Reality
Not if the company goes bust.
Then there is no transfer of anything to anyone - that's what happened to Rover. Why take on the last companies disasterous problems.
Then there is no transfer of anything to anyone - that's what happened to Rover. Why take on the last companies disasterous problems.
the TUPE regs apply in Liquidation/Receivership and Administration as well.
Unless it can be argued that only part of the business/assets have been transferred, in which case a comparative reduction in employees can be applied. In the case of Rover, there was sufficient time between insolvency event and sale so as to be a sale of assets only. There was no "business" sale.
What was left of Rover was ultimately sold to a chinese company. Last time I checked, China wasn't subject to Uk/European employment law in any event and is the plan not to move production out there? In any event, it wasn't a sale or transfer of the business.
#23
Originally Posted by Wurzel
I reckon they should just stop serving food on short haul flights and they would save a packet.
I mean is it really necessary on a 2-3 hour flight to feed the passangers? I donb't think so!
I flew from heathrow to Dublin and got fed and that was only a 45 minute flight, seems abit of a waste of time and money to me.
I mean is it really necessary on a 2-3 hour flight to feed the passangers? I donb't think so!
I flew from heathrow to Dublin and got fed and that was only a 45 minute flight, seems abit of a waste of time and money to me.
American airlines generally work on that principle: Short flights you have to pay for food, and no alcohol at all on any flight unless you pay for it.
Having flown with BA most of my (business) life, it is a little strange to travel with an airline where I have to pay for things. So it would work, but BA would lose one of it's differentiators.
Steve
#24
Originally Posted by Diablo
I wonder what Woodley will be saying when there are 2,000 of them out of a job because of the bloody mindedness of the TGWU?
What was his Victory - As far a I could see he wanted a Single union Deal or he wasn't gonna let Ford build their new factory in Dundee.
Ford Built their Factory somewhere else.
Great Victory - ******** !
#25
Originally Posted by Diablo
Sorry mate, but thats wrong.
the TUPE regs apply in Liquidation/Receivership and Administration as well.
Unless it can be argued that only part of the business/assets have been transferred, in which case a comparative reduction in employees can be applied. In the case of Rover, there was sufficient time between insolvency event and sale so as to be a sale of assets only. There was no "business" sale.
What was left of Rover was ultimately sold to a chinese company. Last time I checked, China wasn't subject to Uk/European employment law in any event and is the plan not to move production out there? In any event, it wasn't a sale or transfer of the business.
the TUPE regs apply in Liquidation/Receivership and Administration as well.
Unless it can be argued that only part of the business/assets have been transferred, in which case a comparative reduction in employees can be applied. In the case of Rover, there was sufficient time between insolvency event and sale so as to be a sale of assets only. There was no "business" sale.
What was left of Rover was ultimately sold to a chinese company. Last time I checked, China wasn't subject to Uk/European employment law in any event and is the plan not to move production out there? In any event, it wasn't a sale or transfer of the business.
Noone's gonna take on GG as they seem to have one customer and are losing £25Mil a year as a result - Unless he is a lottery multi-millionaire ex-Trade Unionist
#26
Isn't the issue more complex than has been made out?
BA originally sold their catering arm to Swissair, Swissair subsequently went bust and the catering arm was sold to some american company. So the link from BA to GG is now quite long.
The problems with GG are not only down to BA. I think you will find that GG used to cater for Virgin as well. They lost the Virgin contract, and therefore need to lose the staff who were making the Virgin food.
The reason BA can't walk away from GG is that apparently no one else has the ability to provide the number of meals that BA require at short notice. Which when you consider the numbers is not suprising!
BA originally sold their catering arm to Swissair, Swissair subsequently went bust and the catering arm was sold to some american company. So the link from BA to GG is now quite long.
The problems with GG are not only down to BA. I think you will find that GG used to cater for Virgin as well. They lost the Virgin contract, and therefore need to lose the staff who were making the Virgin food.
The reason BA can't walk away from GG is that apparently no one else has the ability to provide the number of meals that BA require at short notice. Which when you consider the numbers is not suprising!
#27
GG is owned by american venture capatilists. The main player in this venture group is also on the board of Ryanair. A number of the sacked staff at GG have spouses who work for BA hence BA strike.
However you look at it the BA management have dropped the ball big time. Imagine having BA staff linked to a seperate firm (over who you have no control) which in turn is being run for profit ONLY by someone on the board of a major competitor.
This american also had a birthday party recently which cost something like $6million. Not good pr if you then try to do over some workers on £6 / hr.
However you look at it the BA management have dropped the ball big time. Imagine having BA staff linked to a seperate firm (over who you have no control) which in turn is being run for profit ONLY by someone on the board of a major competitor.
This american also had a birthday party recently which cost something like $6million. Not good pr if you then try to do over some workers on £6 / hr.
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hampshire / Val d'Isere / Verbier
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chrisgr31
The problems with GG are not only down to BA. I think you will find that GG used to cater for Virgin as well. They lost the Virgin contract, and therefore need to lose the staff who were making the Virgin food.
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Belmondo
GG is owned by american venture capatilists. The main player in this venture group is also on the board of Ryanair. A number of the sacked staff at GG have spouses who work for BA hence BA strike.
However you look at it the BA management have dropped the ball big time. Imagine having BA staff linked to a seperate firm (over who you have no control) which in turn is being run for profit ONLY by someone on the board of a major competitor.
This american also had a birthday party recently which cost something like $6million. Not good pr if you then try to do over some workers on £6 / hr.
However you look at it the BA management have dropped the ball big time. Imagine having BA staff linked to a seperate firm (over who you have no control) which in turn is being run for profit ONLY by someone on the board of a major competitor.
This american also had a birthday party recently which cost something like $6million. Not good pr if you then try to do over some workers on £6 / hr.
BA took the opportunity to renegotiate their contract with Gate Gourmet which extended it for a further 10 years with a cost reduction in the region of 20 - 25%. If this figure was impractical to Gate Gourmet then they should never have agreed to it in the first place and instead of blaming BA should look to themselves as the primary source of financial mismanagement.
The workers themselves are far from innocent given the outdated work practices they adopt in order to guild their lilly so if they stage a sit in against a back drop of profligacy and time wasting then they shouldn't really be surprised that they were sacked.
The Union is towing its usual party line with outstanding stupidity by trying to lay the blame at the door of BA who for once are innocent - the usual "nasty management" bollocks they trot out to disguise their camouflaging of inappropriate and morally corrupt working practices.
#30
Does anyone remember the Grunwick dispute? Employer wouldn't recognise union - the courts backed them on this. Result unofficial strike, secondary picketing and intimidation.
The then government - Labour - could do b*ggar all. Result was that when Maggie got in all the trade union legislation was changed.
The then government - Labour - could do b*ggar all. Result was that when Maggie got in all the trade union legislation was changed.