Hollow Victory

On the face of it, BA bloodied the nose of Unite union yesterday in the court ruling on the validity of the staff ballot to strike, making the planned 12 day stoppage over Christmas illegal.

While that may save Christmas for many BA passengers who had booked up with the airline, it is a hollow victory for the management. The staff had voted 9 to 1, that's 92%, in favour of strike action. BA's staff is overwhelmingly dissatisfied with its management to the extent it has taken the unusual step to strike. The warning bells are there that BA's tactic may seem like a victory in a battle but the war-proper has only now begun.

The union has quickly struck back to say they will re-ballot and put the case once again, properly, to the staff and now BA has the longer term uncertainty of when the real strike will begin. For BA passengers, there is now a hiatus and uncertainty - who would bother booking up new flights with BA when they don't know when the strike will be?

In fact, an argument could have been that at least management knew when the strike would be and they so could act to contain the damage - indeed, it could have worked the emotional blackmail of stranded passengers and disrupted Christmas's for many people to its advantage. But no, it just had to take a swipe at the union. In doing, so they have once again bashed the face of the staff who are so incensed at the company's actions that they were willing to kill Christmas for many customers.

BA don't get it - the staff are furious and want a compromise. BA just seems hell bent on killing its own business. As Robert Peston points out on his blog today, there are many serious issues which BA faces, not least that the hole in its pension fund is now valued higher than the worth of the company - and so it focuses on disenchanting its staff and compromising its revenue stream. They could not be in a worse place as they attempt to buy and integrate another failed airline, Iberian.

I have said it before and will bore you with it again - this is a management in no-man's land. It is killing its own business and seems to think that is a good thing. Change at the top is very urgently needed instead of the dreamer who runs it now.

Working Nine To One

Willie Walsh, CEO of BA, is a perennial target of mine but, in fairness, he makes that easy.

I have described BA as a strategically lost company before and there has never been a worse moment for what was once the 'World's Favourite Airline'. It is being squeezed by low budget airlines at one end who consistently out perform expectations in terms of profit and by higher service airlines at the other end who focus on their niche market and make enough to survive. BA's two major 'strategic' moves in the last year have been to make a series of reactionary, 'knee jerk' slashes of its costs, with no real impact or direction, and then make arguably its biggest blunder, to buy another airline in the same strategic 'no man's land', Iberian.

In all of this, the backbone of the company has stuck with Walsh until yesterday when the staff who man the airlines voted nine to one in favour of a strike action, to leave the course of action in the hands of the union, Unite. Walsh seemed to suicidally want to fight his staff, having asked them to make sacrifice after sacrifice to the point when they finally made their stand over the 'dumbing down' of their roles. The company now faces a 12 day period of strike action over one of the busiest travel times of the year - Christmas. It could not have been a worse result for BA - it could not have been a more stupid move by management.

The recent BA history is a litany of business cock ups. Terminal 5's opening was about as inspiring as it got as a superb terminal was project managed in a schoolboy fashion, stress testing the unprepared systems with hordes of real passengers. Then we had the series of staff cost cuts that played with the fantastic loyalty of the staff only to shaft them by trashing their worth in the latest move. In between were two attempts to buy a dying airline in Spain, the first ending in farce as BA's market worth fell below that of their target at the crucial moment, and the launch of a business class only airline out of the City Airport with a capacity of just 32 seats which pandered to the whims of rich bankers when two similar services to the US had failed less than a year earlier.

The message in that service alone could not have been worse to staff, the shareholders and the public - BA was prepared to service rich bankers ahead of paying its staff with a service already proven to be unprofitable by two other companies.

I don't know what the shareholders think of Walsh as they seem to support him grimly, but we now know what the stakeholders think. The once highly vaunted air crews of the once great airline have voted categorically to fight him - and you know instinctively that he has lost his best weapon to survive because he has undervalued and disrespected it.

It's not as if you could not see this coming. It has been a quick process of losing the confidence of the staff and laying a scene for the battle. Walsh calls the action of the union 'cynical' but that's what you get when you lose the support of your staff. From a union's point of view there is no point striking when the airline does not fly - their tactics are generally to hit you were it hurts most as it quickly sparks negotiation, at a battlefield very much with the terrain in their favour. There are no surprises that this is exactly what has happened and it was about as obvious as the cock up at Terminal 5 as it all unravelled.

BA seems to be managed by fools. The strike action is not at all helpful. We can see the Royal Mail happening all over again with the one tragic ingredient for Walsh - the customers do have a choice. There are other airlines to fly - in fact, to Walsh's edification, the skies and airports are full of them. His strategic plan has been a series of schoolboy responses to a business game exercise.

I would say that BA needs a rapid change at the top to survive.

Take Off or Landing?

It's taken two years and arguably when it all started it seemed like a good idea, but the merger between BA and Iberia Airways has finally been agreed. Willie Walsh, CEO of BA, has hailed it as 'Good news for passengers'.

In the last 18 months of intense European travel, the two airlines I personally rate the worst for service are BA and Iberian so it could be said this the merger of two airlines who have lost their way and have resorted to the old adage of 'two heads are better than one'. Both companies made whacking great losses, with BA clocking up £292m in the last six months and Iberia €182m in the last nine months as they competed to be the airline who could clock up the most losses in the shortest time - it looks like a dead heat. The interesting thing is that passenger numbers are similar with BA at 33m and Iberian at 28m yet BA operate 246 aircraft to Iberian's 174 which suggests a disparity on loads. Also, the overlap on destinations means that both airlines get benefits but that creates a problem - how do you drive the kinds of savings you need to get any benefit and keep the same number of routes operating?

This is the real problem - the estimated £358m of savings nowhere near covers the combined loss and it is not clear how the savings will come about. The new headquarters will be in London and Walsh will be the new CEO - none of the news so far is actually very encouraging.

Ryan Air sees this as 'Two drunks propping themselves up' and for once they are spot on and not being loony. On the face of this it is exactly that - two airlines who had run out of ideas and strategy think that combining two worthless strategies and ailing businesses, led by donkeys, will actually solve their problems. It really is a merger devoid of inspirations, carved out of a desire first dreamt up in better days. While big can be beautiful, the merged companies are going to spend the next two years arguing over cuts and who does what as the industry emerges from recession. A really clever move by two companies that have hit the recession with no real idea what the core strengths of their airlines are.

Walsh's only victory seems to be that BA will be the dominant company with the HQ in London and 55% of the shares owned - and he is CEO which seems to be a sad indictment of the combined management talent of the two companies. BA has been particularly rudderless and idealess during this recession with an emphasis on lack of strategy and daft ideas on cost cutting, while their low cost competitors have thrived. As fuel prices came down to help costs, BA fared worse than before and the underlying profitability of the business is virtually broken. BA and Iberian are caught in the no man's land of European airline strategy and the combination of the position does not actually help them with such poor leadership at the top. No wonder the staff look to the HQ and ponder what will happen next.

One thing is for certain, two huge clouds hang over this merer long before they try to get any strategic or operational benefit - 1) the impending action by a once loyal staff against the suicidal efforts to cut costs and dumb-down jobs and 2) the enormous hole in BA's pension pot. The latter may yet scupper the deal while the former will blight it at every step because it is an issue that will only grow as the combined airline will strive for even greater cuts and efficiencies.

On thing is for certain, the worst news is that Willie Walsh has won the top job. It's the equivalent of asking a passenger to fly the plane.

No Flying Sandwiches

It is a dark day when BA announces that it is banishing the free meal from its short haul flights.

I use the term 'meal' loosely as I am referring to the dreaded BA sandwich. I mean, it wasn't as if it was gourmet fare anyway but to take away perhaps the last bastion of differentiation between the national carrier and low-cost, no frills airlines is close to rock bottom. It seems also to be the limit of the creative thinking of an increasingly beleaguered CEO, Willie Walsh.

True, by banishing the rather poor sandwich and chocolate tit bit from flights after 10.00am (fear not, breakfast on flights before 10.00am remain reassuringly unaffected by this callous measure) that last less than two and a half hours saves the struggling airline £22m which cannot be overlooked. However, when passengers start making comparisons with other or low-cost airlines you have to start thinking, what is the difference?

I have to say I am no fan of Ryan Air. Until recently, you had to queue endlessly at Stansted in order to get checked in but they have now introduced online and electronic check in at the airport. Somewhat strangely, but typical of Ryan Air, you pay for the privilege of checking yourself in. In fact, you pay for everything. By the time you have added the whole thing up, if the bare fare was not as low as £3.99 then you may as well book a flat fare with BA.

You think I'm kidding? No way.

If you travel with a bag to check in and particularly if the bag carries more than a toiletry bag and a few items to wear, then you are looking at excess baggage charges which themselves are excessive. You can easily start paying Ryan Air some distance over a BA airfare. When you start adding in the fact in most cases you get rained on when walking to the aircraft because they are too stingy to afford renting jetways and that you cannot get the seat you want unless you pay more for the most idiotic and useless 'priority boarding' system which is policed by nobody, then you start to realise why O'Leary and his shareholders are making such excellent profits.

The trick for low-cost airlines is simple volume. There is no point in buying and flying expensive aircraft if you cannot utilise them to the full. So each plane is flown as many times a day as it can fit in, so the shorter the distance of the flight, the better. And it is turned around as fast as it can at each destination while the number of seats occupied each flight should be as high as possible, which is where the price gimmickry comes from. It is a recipe for over crowded planes and low service levels but 67m will fly Ryan Air alone this year which is 15% up from last year. And they are not alone with Easyjet in hot pursuit.

The key to success is the explosion of routes. Between Easyjet and Ryan Air, the number of interesting new places to visit has grown enormously over the last 10 years. We may laugh that we often get our imaginations stretched as to what constitutes a flight to Stockholm or Brussels but by and large the routes are superb. Take flying to Valencia as an example. It is one of the largest cities in Spain, just 100km from the northern edges of 'Britville' holidays, it hosts some of the biggest conferences in Europe, the Americas Cup in 2007 and in a few weeks time it will host the F1 Grand Prix of Europe on a superb street circuit - it is also home to one of the best football teams in Europe. Try flying there by either BA or its partner, Iberia, and you are looking at a two flight hop costing a minimum of £700. Or you can choose a direct flight with either Easyjet or Ryan Air. Even when you get to the low-cost airlines, choice is crucial. Easyjet was almost twice the cost of Ryan Air, and it only flies once a day to the destination. Ryan Air won hands down.

This year, as a supporter of London Wasps rugby club, I hope to take in at least one of their away European games. I have been to Paris, Biarritz and Treviso to support them in the past but they have also played at several southern French and northern Italian towns only accessible by low cost airlines. Then there are the people who either buy or rent holiday homes - imagine the ability to simply hop for a long weekend to a home near Perpignan?

And there is the business element. With premium cabins like Club Europe faltering, I cannot think why I would choose BA to fly short haul these days. Luton Airport is just 25 minutes up the road from me, the parking is cheaper and the terminal is fine. Easyjet and Ryan Air fly regularly to Paris, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Manchester and Amsterdam as well as a variety of other major cities combining convenience and low-cost for the business traveller, particularly if you are away only a short time. Stansted is not bad either - apart from places like Valencia, it was my only access point to fly to Montpelier when working for a company with an HQ down there previously. Heathrow, for anyone north of London is almost inaccessible with the M25 widening roadworks set to be with us for the next 3 years (yes, I am serious) and then short term parking is so costly and far away from the terminals to render the whole process a nightmare.

The formula for budget airlines may indeed be spartan but you have to admit they have seriously taken BA to task. The stuffy, backward airline pinned so much of its hopes on Terminal 5 only to see all the access it has built to the terminal bottlenecked by a seriously congested motorway network. And then, what the hell happened to the airconditioning at Terminal 5? It is is built with so much glass that it's like a greenhouse whenever there is more than a few rays of sun, making the whole travel experience a rather unpleasantly sticky affair. Also, knowing what we now know about airport security and the time, hassle and inconvenience it adds to a journey, why on earth did they plan the entrance into the airside area of the new terminal so badly? I am even leaving out the most disastrous piece of project management I have witnessed in a while when they actually commissioned the new terminal.

Yet on soldiers Willie Walsh. I don't know what photos he has of Board members and big shareholders, but they must be pretty compromising for him to still be in a job. He has happily presided over the most incredible swing of profitability to major loss in a single year that has been seen in the UK. In that time, all the major and minor flaws of the airline have been exposed and rather than making a huge shift in strategy and tactics at the airline, we are seeing it respond by imploring its staff to take salary holidays and axing the meagre meals on short haul flights. In small business terms, this is the equivalent of not buying fresh flowers once a week for reception or axing the monthly staff pizzas - both of which I have personally done in response to poor performance and in both cases I saw a disproportionate drop in staff morale and a decrease in my managerial credibility as a result.

Willie Walsh has a further problem. Getting rid of the monthly pizzas for me got me bad press within my company - for Walsh, this is national news. Many years ago as a trainee salesperson at Hewlett-Packard, the free biscuits for staff were rescinded as part of a global cost cutting measure. You may as well have asked staff to take a pay cut or axe the annual staff bonus - it was taken that seriously internally. But Walsh's actions are public and customer facing. Taking away the motley sandwich was part of the service and cost of a ticket. By saving £22m publicly he is not taking the same amount of the price of tickets. He is also announcing that the cost of the sandwich was trivial compared to the price of the ticket as £22m spread across each ticket sold is pennies.

We were paying a premium for this particular sandwich, and now Willie Walsh has told us just how much of premium.

And that had been BA's flawed business model for some time. Without the profit at the front of spaces on the aircrafts, as premium passengers watch the pennies in these troubled times, the whole business of flying anybody from A to B becomes loss making to an airline like BA with such a massive cost base.

Cutting a measly sandwich is one of the few responses to the crisis of an idealess CEO. It also sends the worst possible message to its customers - "We were ripping you off for the cost of a sandwich".

BA needs far more than this to be a credible force of the future. Once, it dominated the landing slots in the UK and so stifled competition by being big. Virgin chipped away at that and brought innovation and service as well as price competition to BA at its two main hubs. Then the budget airlines came from left field. Instead of competing for slots at the national hubs, they picked off the subsidiary airports who were hungry to compete with Heathrow and Gatwick and there was no shortage of investment to support this - and certainly no shortage of customers to justify it.

In fairness to Walsh, the rot set in on BA a long time ago - and was compounded when they capitulated their own low-cost airline, Go, to Easyjet. But his woeful performance under pressure has contributed badly to the past mistakes and could possibly see BA lose its national carrier status in the not too distant future.

It will take a great deal more than losing a sandwich to make a difference at BA and far more focus will go on how they properly spend the extra £600m of cash they have recently raised. I would wager it will be the making or breaking of Willie Walsh in short order and, frankly, on his performance so far, I don't give him a chance.

How Far Would You Go To Save Your Job?

In these troubled times, even though there is talk of recoveries on the way, the continuing contraction of economies means that inevitably job losses have some way to go before they peak.

British Airways workers have voted to take a 'work for free' month after CEO, Willie Walsh, led the way. The fact that he was surrendering £35k was pretty impressive but then so is his annual salary, despite presiding over the largest loss since the airline was privatised. Workers at JCB voted to go on shorter working hours in order to save some 300 job losses. I am sure there are more examples of how people have either made sacrifices or been incredibly innovative about how they persuade their employer not to shed their job.

In Spain, where many economists are predicting as high as 20% unemployment very soon, the situation is becoming desperate. To some extent, here in the UK, people are either stoic, fall back on the Welfare State or are reasonably confident they can get another job over time - even if they have to accept less money or seniority. The Spanish predicament is so acute that if someone loses their job, then the likelihood of finding another at all, let alone with a salary drop, is very remote.

There has been the case of one Spanish man who worked at the Barcelona International Convention Centre who contracted a group of six Colombians to murder his boss in the hope that it would stave off the imminent loss of his job. At least he will not go without a roof and food as he is due to spend a significant time in jail.

But it begs the question: How far would you go to save your job?

Work Hard And Be Flexible

I don't know if there are any good formulae to be really helpful in trying to save your job. I am sure many companies are just using the current situation to shed more than is necessary as for some companies you have to believe that they cannot see beyond the very short term with some of the measures they take. Many banks and financial companies have slashed back office staff, while embarking on high visibility marketing campaigns and you have to question their management capability. The Government is reducing the Armed Forces headcount yet we are fighting two major wars - strategies continually seem to be at loggerheads with market situations. Many companies are cutting very deeply just at the point when economists are predicting we are through the worst of the recession and that markets may pick up.

That doesn't help the people being made redundant. Some people can see the writing on the wall and almost invite it. There is some wisdom here. Think about it - the market is at its nadir and things may pick up soon so what better than to have a nice redundancy pay off, take advantage of a lovely hot summer or foreign holiday and wait it out until the market picks up?

The fact is that most of us are born worriers and the older you are the worse it gets. As a person not far from 50, I have mild panic attacks thinking what would happen if my business implodes and it must be far worse for those working for large employers as at least I am pretty much in charge of my own destiny. I have seen small companies cruise into the recession and hang precariously onto a single decent customer who is the difference between survival and bankruptcy and am astonished how they continue to not worry. Then I look at people like my sister, whose company is having a strong time thanks to continued Government spend on training and yet she is never satisfied that they have enough resilience.

Different companies and different people react in different ways. For many, a job is a mark of status or duty while to others it's what pays the bills. Clearly, to the unfortunate man in Spain, it was his everything.

I used to think that if you worked hard and were flexible then your employer would value your contribution. This recession has proved that employers do not always work that way. In the heat of the banking crisis, great swathes of administration and back office jobs - none of which had contributed in any way to the idiotic decision-making that exposed the organisations to losses beyond comprehension - were lost and few of the whizz kids who caused the mess were ditched. In fact, in the craziness of the Bank of America take over of Merrill Lynch, they actually paid bonuses long after everyone vented their spleens on the subject to prevent the very people who caused it all leaving. Here in the UK, the banks proved almost suicidal as RBS shed some 9,000 jobs and then a subsidiary launched a glossy advert campaign saying how they were going to mobilise more staff to visit clients. Aviva spent millions on telling us why they were changing Norwich Unions' name yet in the same timeframe they made many people redundant and saw their share price collapse.

My point here is that this recession has exposed us to some of the worst effects of poor management and it is pretty clear that some seriously large companies are managed by fairly incompetent managers. This means that the decision-making in cutting jobs is being made from pretty limited understanding of business and therefore likely to not really focus on what is needed for the future and almost certainly neglect the general contribution of workers. Management by numbers has come to the fore and 'entrepreneurial' and 'blue sky thinking' managers who delighted in their own successes seem to have all too quickly abdicated their responsibilities and left it to the accountants.

My only advice to people under threat of redundancy is to seek good advice and to listen to what the company has to say. Inevitably there may be some consultation process and, if so, take an active part and be constructive and conspicuous. If you want to save your job in dire times, it is important to be flexible. I know there is a real danger that employers may force what appear to be short term changes in conditions on employees in order to save jobs, but make sure concessions are made with caveats relating to the future. In all of this, keep talking about the future because that's where the company is trying to get to so if you play your part in helping your employer get a future, so too must you at least get back what you sacrificed to help this being achieved.

Redundancy is an emotive topic and many take it personally. In my book, it is more a failing of the company and its management team and the stigma should fall on them. In the UK, it doesn't work like that. There is no penalty on the company for using redundancy to boost profitability, the State picks up the tab and so it becomes an easy weapon to use. In France and other Continental countries, redundancy is a hard tool to use to save money and can end up costing more. For good or bad, this focuses the minds of managers to be not so bullish in the good times and be prudent in the bad - to make them run their businesses more strategically rather than tactically even if they that's what they think they are doing (so many believe if they mention the worked 'strategic' then that is what they are doing - most have no idea what strategy is).

In preparation for potential redundancy, think positively about how you will handle it, talk to family and friends, get ideas on what you may do after being redundant, formulate a plan of action, a list of things you want to do, and how you will do them. Most of all use the experience to gain a confidence rather than the opposite. Remember, if you are not for a man like Stephen Hester of RBS, who will get a £9.6m bonus shortly, nicely in proportion with the 9,000 redundancies. You can walk away with your head held high as you were not in it for yourself alone.

Britain has a chance to get better managers in place, to force companies to think beyond the mountain of short term opportunity, to be more prudent, regulate themselves more and protect their employees against the outcome of their stupid actions. Time and again, low paid workers pay with their jobs for more well off managers' mistakes.

As we sit under a Socialist Government, you would have thought this would have been top of their agenda. Once again it will be an opportunity missed.

Business As Usual

Spital Square was always a busy place. It's where a small fleet of very smart private taxis wait for RBS staff to give them a ride to wherever they may be going - home presumably. You may think such little luxuries go by the wayside when their company has collapsed in value but not these good fellows.

Last night, the little fleet of smart cars were ferrying evening-dressed managers from RBS to a swanky City dinner so they could blow some expenses, I dare say, and congratulate themselves on another terrific year. It appears there is little scope for consideration of bail out monies or public scrutiny - the business of the City must go on, come what may. Perhaps it may have been Cava not Champers this year. I doubt it, must keep up appearances, eh?

Revulsion

As the banking system staggers after each explosion, it does not sound like the glamorous career it used to be with the potential of somewhat less bonuses in the future. A further advert on why such a career is pretty revolting was last night's TV documentary called 'Million Pound Traders' which was yet another show designed to satisfy our seemingly unending appetite for 'Reality TV'. This time a foreign investor gave some money to a group of would-be traders who proceeded to spend it in a series of trades designed to show how good they were in making profit. They were headed by the seemingly hard-nosed 'Anton' who said for the camera's benefit that 'It's time to press the brutality switch'. All sense of Employment Law naturally goes out the window in such environments as we saw in the excellent docu-drama last week called 'Sex, the City and Me' which acted out an amalgam of real stories set around a successful woman who became a mother and her career in a fictional trading house.

What it illustrated was that the City is so single-minded about greed as to make the people who do it at best seedy and at worst down-right revolting. Coupled with the lack of guilt displayed by people at the top like John Thain, Fred Goodwin, Dick Fuld and others it shows that it comes from the top down.

Once again, it really does not inspire confidence that Gordon Brown surrounds himself with the flannel-talking, obsequious Investment Bankers as his Advisers at this time.

Bail Out, Bail Out

'No, this is not a bail out', stressed Lord Mandelson yesterday as the newly enlightened Business Secretary outlined the basis for around £2.3bn of loans designed to save the car industry. I have blogged on this before and at stake are around 850,000 jobs associated, directly or indirectly, with the car industry as production has collapsed by 49%, sales by over 35% and acres of unsold cars litter our countryside.

He was right - according to the Tony Woodley of Union Unite, it falls short of what is required to save tens of thousands of jobs. Mandelson is hosting a summit for the industry today but there will be calls to extend the £1.3bn of loan guarantees and offer of £1bn of lending for car makers in order to safeguard their industry and attempt to stimulate demand. A whole raft of car makers have downgraded or stopped production and the immediate effect was felt by steelmakers, Corus, who announced 2,500 lay offs this week.

Once again, it seems the Government has come up with a half-baked, knee jerk solution which has been devised by unskilled Advisers and not listened to the views of the carmakers themselves.

What is the Point of The FSA?

"Highly paid bunch of layabouts," spat my source close to the FSA. "Cushy jobs for former mandarins or retired City types, combined with tons of Non-Executive Directorships - it's just a nice place to have an office, get rich and play online games all day."

Well my source had nothing to with the FSA but was making an irritated observation at the apparent lack of action by the FSA in the lead up to and since the banking collapse. No heads have rolled, no explanation as to why no one spotted that the whole system was at risk and no comment or insight as to how the future of banking will shape up. It really is time we got some people in the FSA who are actually going to do something in these key roles rather than former names who just collect the cheques and ignore the obvious.

If the FSA is to survive going forward, it needs to start dictating the rules Brown's 'New World Order' and get some sense of proportion into banking that removes the blind avarice that causes the problems we face today.

Dive, Dive, Dive

The Commercial Property market paid out record bonuses last year and whooped it up at the tail end of the property boom. Many claim they have set aside plenty of funds to ride out the downturn in their defence but I sure hope it's going to be enough.

I will lay a small wager that we will see plenty of job cuts in this sector before the year's out and not a penny of all those whacking bonuses will be repaid.

The share prices of the barometer companies in this industry have dived at an alarming rate. In the last 12 months shares in British Land have collapsed by 58%, Hammerson by 65%, Land Securities by 60% and Liberty International by 63%. The predicted fall in capital values from 2007 to 2010 will be 45% and it is now anticipated that rental values will collapse in 2009.

Bonus well-earned then.

Financial Stimulus to Defibrillation

The rather salaciously termed 'Financial Stimulus' package we know as 'bail out' is already in its second iteration. What started as silky stroking of the poorly patient, the Economy, had little effect. It now seems the patient has been rushed to A&E where a team of 'Advisers' are now administering rapid pulses of electricity to its chest. We had the second bail out and now we have the car industry bail out - pretty soon we shall be having more. That is, if the views of a body of influential MPs are to be believed.

A report from a Treasury Committee has expressed what most of the country felt that the bank recapitalisation program announced in October did diddly squat and because of the 'onerous' terms may actually be hampering them, the poor lambs. Credit, or lack of it, to consumers is seen as the biggest threat.

Erm, haven't we got around £1 trillion of it unsecured on our credit cards already?

While the report talks of the £12.4bn VAT giveaway having about as much effect as attacking a tiger with a bottled fart, it warns of a 'self-reinforcing deflationary cycle' occurring if we aren't careful. I dare say they have either looked in Gordon Brown's Terminology Booklet for Gobbledygook or this is a new type of carbon-friendly bike as yet not available at Halfords.

I still think it's cuckoo land expecting consumers to go and clock up more debt to get Britain out of this mess. We are going to have to take a lot on the chin before things get bright enough to start loaning again.

The Mortgage Scam

I need to be careful here. Why is it that it is extremely hard to get a tracker mortgage that is not some way above Bank Base Rate now?

My current one, taken out around 2 years ago is 0.49% above base rate. Most UK banks now have access to money from the Bank of England at base rates and are no longer worrying about having to borrow at the inter-bank lending rate which went sky high in the Credit Crunch as no-one wanted to lend to one another.

Well here's a thought. If all these banks can borrow at 1.5% and have their borrowing guaranteed under the generous schemes by the Government, then they can lend this out at the LIBOR rates to foreign banks who are struggling to get credit and also make an absolute mint on lending for mortgages. Trackers have absolutely no reason to be so high in particular as they are directly linked to base rates - if it goes up, so do they offering a consistent margin to the lenders. It should be the fixed rates which should be the premium products when you think about it as base rates must rise again some time in the future and so decreasing the margins.

I bet there are an awful lot of lenders rubbing their hands at the very, very easy money they are making, completely underwritten by the very people they are lending to - us! Nice one, Gordon - as usual make sure the banking boys get their bonuses next year at taxpayers' expense.

Lordy, Lordy

I couldn't let the day go by without taking a poke at the scandal in the House of Lords. Again, there is widespread surprise that some Lords are claiming massive expenses, as much as £400,000 per annum in some cases. That's nothing - now Lord Mandelson is on the scene, we should see some real growth here. Further, the Evening Standard reports that Ministers like Jack Straw have received donations from companies associated with Lord Taylor.

I am so glad that Brown and his cronies got turned over on MP Expenses transparency. It really is time that whole political expenses, donations and backhander gravy train got really looked into by real people who care about how the money is being spent rather than by Government-appointed stooges who themselves are on the train.

Exterminate!

Ah, I thought it said Davros, not Davos - apologies but the word springs to mind.

I am delighted such luminaries as the well-paid Bob Diamond, CEO of Barclays Capital which recently bought part of Lehmans Bros and then caringly laid off a load of their staff to part-pay for it which I am sure they were all suitably grateful for, will not be attending to the Davos Summit this year. I believe he has more pressing matters like the bank's earnings announcement after it was feared Barclays could fall into the clutches of the Middle Eastern investors who bailed it out in preference to the Government's largesse.

Things must be tough for bank executives to miss a freebie like this and hobnob with the likes of Jet Li, whose insight on world matters is legendary, I'm sure.

The World's Favourite Debt - Not!

Fresh-footed back from India having secured new routes there, BA CEO Willie Walsh might be choking at the headline in the Telegraph which warns that Standard & Poor could rate the airline's debt as junk. Willie must have been delighted that in a year which saw the Terminal 5 fiasco show his skills at its best that his company announced a £150m loss for the year. S&P have now put BA's rating as BBB which does not stand for 'Bad, Bad, Bad' but isn't far off. In a comment of blinding decisiveness, S&P analyst, Andreas Kindahl, said "There is a 50:50 chance the next move could be down."

Poor Willie - he did so want 65% of the merged new airline between BA and Iberian but at current market prices, Iberian is actually worth more than BA. If that's the case, maybe the Armada did not die in vain.

From Jet Li to No Jet

As Jet Li prepares to take his place at the Davos summit, spare a thought for the executives at Citigroup who have had to cancel their order for a private jet. As they were not prepared to cancel the order themselves, new US Treasury Secretary, Tim Giethner, stepped in and did it for them.

Let's get things into perspective, Tim, it was only $50m. Compared to the bonuses paid out by these fellows to themselves last year, this was just a snip.

Thain Update

Poor JT - the billions of dollars paid in bonuses to executives at Merrills just days before the merger with BoA and the recent announcement of a mere $15.3bn loss in the quarter are beginning to get blown out of proportion as he has now been called before the real beaks as part of a legal investigation into the matter.

Aw, how dare they harass the poor chap.

Maybe they should look more closely at Dick Fuld, the glassy-eyed ex-CEO of Lehman Bros who got hauled up before a Senate committee to explain how, after paying handsome bonuses to himself and his executives, that he managed to bust the company.

Poor Dick had to sell his house at a knock down price, you know. The $13m Florida mansion had to be sold for just $100 which shows the terrible extent of the property market.

The new owner of the 3.3 acre site on Jupiter Island, where Tiger Woods and Celine Dion live, is a certain Kathleen Fuld who by happy coincidence is his wife.

At least they won't be needing their $21m Manhattan apartment right now as Dick is out of work and having to defend his good name - and his $20m art collection.

Bad News For Kids

Everyone gets hit by the recession, even kids. The news is that Hornby will be raising the prices of its train sets and scaletrix products pretty soon despite the recent success at Christmas thanks to their brands like Corgi and Airfix but they also own franchises for Batman, The Simpsons, Harry Potter and The Italian Job.

See, now look what your 'Deleveraging and deglobalisation' has done, Gordon? You've made the kids cry.

The Credit Crunch Gets Personal

We all know mortgages are harder to come by since it dawned on the financial industry that their natty way to finance their business was suicidal, but that £1 trillion of personal unsecured debt is now the perfect way for finance companies to make money. Credit is crunching.

Would You Credit It?

I am talking about yesterday's report in the Telegraph business section which highlighted what frankly what we ought to know but it's still pretty shocking. While the Bank of England's base interest rate has fallen to the lowest level in its 300+ year history of just 1.5%, the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) on one credit card is up to 46%.

That particular beast of a card is the perhaps not a surprise one - it's the British Airways American Express Card, no doubt a prize possession of much travelled Bankers, Partners and Lawyers. To add to the cache of the card, its Annual Fee on the Premium Card has just risen from £120 to £150 just in case you should clear the balance regularly. Altogether, it is the most expensive card on the market (no I didn't mean say it altogether, I meant - oh, please yourself).

For the mathematicians amongst us, that APR rate is over 30 times the base lending rate - a nice profit in tough times for sure (must send a note to the LinkedIn Discussion at IOD on businesses booming in a Recession).

But BA Amex is not alone - the Northern Bank NI Platinum MasterCard charges a whopping 42% APR and a £200 annual fee, Citi's Ultima MasterCard is 41% APR and £300 annual fee, the Vanquis Bank (who are they?) Visa is 39% APR and no fee and (Oh no, not after yesterday's article on Virgin Trains) Virgin Money's Atlantic Black Amex is 37% APR and £115 annual fee.

There's Lots of Money in Plastic

The BA Amex Card has been singled out by Which? as leading the nasty stakes when it comes to credit cards and even dwarfs the kinds of APR charged by cards like Vanquis which aims its high interest rates at those with the worst record of payment performance (there is a perverse logic in banking which says make those who can't pay, pay more because no on else will lend to them). The nasty BA Amex card is generally used by frequent flyer types and the benefit is 1.5 air miles for each £1 spent on the card, a free companion flight when air miles are redeemed and a limit of £10,000 per year (why limit it with that kind of interest rate?).

Naturally BA say Amex set the rates and it isn't their fault that their chosen partner charges the highest rate on the market and is therefore not their concern. As an aside, comparing recent flight costs to Italy, compared to Alitalia in every instance BA were more than double the cost and this concurs with an 'insider' I spoke with at BA who tells me that it is BA's deliberate strategy in a downturn to charge significantly more for their flights while nearly all other airlines have adopted the strategy of lowering prices, usually temporarily. The perverse logic here is that BA own a significant proportion of the routes available and so travellers HAVE to use them in a large proportion of instances and especially businesses where BA have been mandated as preferred airline or of course those Frequent Business Fliers who ask their Travel Company for BA only as they get the Air Miles and Executive Club status as perks.

But BA Amex are not the only culprits - a study of 240 credit cards by Defaqto shows that the average APR on cards climbed from 17.2% to 17.6% in the six months to November 2008 - a period when underlying interest rates were falling at unprecedented levels.

To Point Out

The nasty cards pointed out by Which?, with the exception of Virgin Money which frankly has no excuse (and I have a card with them I paid off last year when it got very expensive), are almost all at the high end or aimed at bad credit risks. The logic says that snooty banking types can't have a flash car and job without a cache credit card that looks gold, platinum or jet black when they brandish it to buy their round at the Champagne Bar. Meanwhile, those who cannot afford to buy anything are charged extortionate fees as they are assumed to be so desperate they would pay anything. Loan sharks, we are told, are rolling up so much fees, penalties and interest rates that some poor people in real debt trouble are being charged 10,000% on their debts - and these credit cards only add to the agony and hopelessness of a situation.

While the snooty types can fend for themselves, why on earth do we allow companies to operate that can charge such high APR rates, particularly to people they already know cannot afford it?

Of course, credit cards make money at both ends of the spectrum. They charge the retailers a percentage of the sale value for effectively offering finance to the customer and depending on the card type it can be 2% or more but generally around 1.5% of the purchase price (including VAT of course). So these companies are raking it in.

It is also fair to say that the proliferation of cards is curious as many firms, like BA, offer cards which just bear their name. Beneath lurks the co-conspirators like Amex or in Virgin's general case the MBNA Bank who have a great reputation for high charges and poor service - or at least in my house they do.

Conclusions

Unsecured credit card debt is a licence to print money.

The providers are raking it in. In the case of BA and Amex, it is a cosy relationship where Amex can target specific high end net worth individuals who use credit cards very regularly on travel to buy travel and expensive goods and so can afford high costs of credit and are willing to pay for cache. While BA 'sells' this customer list to Amex for a nice return on the transactions and I dare say a share in the interest payments. Each can divorce themselves from the other at the consumer end as per the article when reporters go snooping.

Credit cards again appear to have a lack of regulation and control. While general interest rates fall, credit card average APRs go up. Part of this is that there is increased risk as this is unsecured debt and there is no longer the equity flying around to cover it if it can't be repaid and part of it is that it's easy to charge more because no one will stop them. Also, with increased protection being offered by the Government for people with smaller debts to get them written off, individual credit cards are coming into the firing line as they rarely offer greater than £5,000 to £10,000 credit limit per card - this means the new protection system for debts of £15,000 or less may force credit card companies to have to start writing off more bad debt in the future. Hence higher credit costs again.

The long and the short of it is that it comes back to spending our way out of a recession. There is a big risk that unsecured credit will rise if we follow the Brown/Darling/Keynes approach as we spend beyond our means and have no equity in our homes to cover it. The best advice surely is to consolidate and try and bring this debt down as servicing it is eating into our monthly disposable income at an increasing rate despite interest rates coming down.

I'm no financial expert but surely that makes sense?