LINEAMIENTO PARA EVALUAR LA PROPUESTA

6.10.1 Interviewee Attitudes to Change

Amongst the interviewees there was a positive attitude towards change and a strong sense that something needs to be done to address the car parking problems being faced at Heathrow, both for the good of the airport and the overall benefit of the environment.

Comments included, “I don’t underestimate that we have to start working towards a better solution for the airport” (BAA 3), “the reality is we just cannot not intervene, we have to”

(BAA 3) and “you can’t just create acres of car parking space, there has to be some other thought brought to the process.” (BAA 2). In one interview the issue of appealing against the Terminal 5 parking cap was raised and the response demonstrated the positive attitude towards dealing with the parking problems, “I would hate to think that we would appeal it and I wouldn’t be very happy. It would make me doubt the whole environment in which I work to be honest.” (BAA 1).

Several potential initiatives were highlighted by the interviewees; throughout the interviews all respondents were receptive to new ideas and displayed a high degree of forward thinking in terms of appropriate solutions to help address the situation,

“we’re keen on alternatives but equally some practical solutions like financial incentives for people to give up their car parking spaces” (BAA 5) and “I think it needs to be balanced…various incentives, disincentives, better route planning, better provision of how

we get to work.” (BAA 3). New solutions such as more flexible working policies, a restructuring of the permit allocation procedure, matching car park location to where employees entered the airport and a restructuring of the pricing mechanism were suggested as potential solutions, or partial solutions to the car parking problems. At the same time, it was recognised that emotive factors could impact upon finding the most straight-forward solutions, “I think if you were to take the emotive side out of it the answers are quite simple.” (BAA 3).

There was also a feeling amongst the interviewees that BAA had to lead by example, put more effort in and build up some initial momentum to support any change before other companies could be expected to put more effort and resources into changing employee travel habits. In a similar fashion it was felt that as landlords, BAA had to lead any change,

“where you have a big site like this where you the company own the land then it’s down to you to sort out the problems.” (BAA 4). At the same time there was recognition that with a workforce of 68,000 across Heathrow changing from one system to another would not be an easy task.

6.10.2 Third Party Companies’ Attitudes to Change

A few of the interviewees said that some companies at Heathrow are beginning to show signs that they are interested in a new parking strategy to reduce the amount of money they have to spend on parking passes for their employees. This is particularly the case with larger employers such as British Airways and American Airlines, who have approached BAA to discuss working together. Respondents explained that at present, the way parking permits are allocated is a ‘take it or leave it’ system and organisations like American Airlines are keen to move to a more flexible system based on daily rather than annual charges, which means employees can drive when they need and use alternatives at other times. At the same time as being positive towards changing to the current system, such companies are looking to BAA to lead its implementation so that BAA can be used as a scapegoat when communicating it to staff, due of the human and industrial relations sensitivities. Achieving a change is considered to be affected by the engagement and willingness of each company.

Many companies, however, are not so keen to see any change in the way employee parking is managed, “companies are reticent to do anything that might put people off coming to work at the airport.” (BAA 1). As well as recruitment and retention fears, there are other

human resource concerns including employee unhappiness and the potential for industrial action, such is the emotive nature of car parking. In some cases, companies were not felt to fully understand the car parking issues present at the airport and do not have a sense of urgency, or are simply avoiding the issue. This reflects some similar views within BAA as explored in section 6.11.1. Another possible reason cited for this unwillingness to change is that because car parking monies have been apportioned anyway, they are almost a sunk cost to the company and regarded as money that will be spent regardless. Some companies have historical passes in the Central Terminal Area which poses particular problems for BAA because of the sensitivity of taking them away in such a desirable location.

6.10.3 Employee Attitudes to Change

Employees are considered by the interviewees at BAA to be very unreceptive to change and it is expected they would react negatively to any new parking system being introduced. In general, the idea of change is not favoured by people and car parking is an extremely emotive issue, even regarded to be as important as pay. Long serving employees who have been used to parking for several years are highlighted as a particular group that would be very hard to communicate a change to. Even within BAA, where it may be considered that a greater understanding of the car parking pressures should exist, there is evidence of some employees who are of the attitude “I won’t allow anyone to take my car parking space”

(BAA 3) indicating that employee attitudes are not just particular to third parties where there could be expected to be a lesser understanding. There was also a feeling that when confronted with a survey or focus group, employees would often say they were willing to try alternatives but then never followed it up, or they would say “well I would if I could” (BAA 1) but without ever investigating the options that were available to them. Therefore it was viewed that people displaying some willingness to change, but then did not actually put their willing into practice.

The introduction of a direct parking charge to employees was regarded as an especially unfavourable measure in terms of staff reaction, “a charge would be seen as very negative because it’s almost like a tax on your job.” (BAA 2). It was suggested that the reaction to such a charge would be uproar for two reasons, firstly

“I’m not paying that, it’s not in my contract, I refuse to pay, what are you going to do, I’m going to strike” (BAA 3) and secondly an attitude of “BAA just wanting to make money out

of us.” (BAA 3).

6.11 Culture

6.11.1 BAA Company Culture

Large amounts of time in the interviews were spent discussing cultural issues and specifically the culture within BAA. The interviewees felt that at present BAA was avoiding the issue where car parking was concerned, “I think there’s an element of sticking heads in the sand because it’s such a difficult issue and people are hoping it will go away, but it won’t” (BAA 5), “I have to say the company is nowhere near accepting it’s got a problem at the moment…I think a lot of people in the company think that it will just sort itself out.”

(BAA 4). In terms of dealing with the car parking problems across the whole airport site, it was considered important that BAA first “live and breathe” (BAA 1) the chosen solution before they could realistically get other companies involved. At the same time there was recognition that BAA was a small proportion of the overall population and had not even got it’s own company “on board” (BAA 4) as yet, thus making the cooperation of a further 350 companies appear a large task.

It was felt that serious attention would only be given to the problem when a “crisis point”

was reached, “when the car parks get fuller and we start to have problems then I think we might take this issue more seriously…I think we’re shying away from some of these issues that will become business critical soon but because they’re not business critical we’re not dealing with them.” (BAA 1). It was also considered, however, that the cap of 42,000 spaces has helped to focus some thinking on car parking and made people more aware of the issues.

These issues raised concerns with the interviewees about the companies “lack of preparedness” (BAA 1) for dealing with the car parking problems it was facing, “what worries me is that we don’t realise how big a job it is.” (BAA 1). Part of the reason for this lack of preparedness is thought to be that the company has in the past warned of imminent car parking problems which have subsequently not materialised and so current warnings are not taken so seriously, “I think in some ways we’ve created an environment that allows people to be comfortable because I think maybe we’ve cried wolf unintentionally.” (BAA 1).

A further reason cited for the lack of preparedness was that the car parking is currently managed by a small group of people and the main responsibility is not seen to be with the airport at large. Until that situation is resolved there it is contemplated there will continue to

be an avoidance of tackling car parking problems.

A major cultural factor was the lack of support that the interviewees felt was being provided by top level management in the area of car parking, “nothing seems to be moving quickly in those areas because it is a struggle to obtain buy in from the leadership.” (BAA 5).

Questions which were not aimed at investigating cultural issues were often answered in terms of the lack of support and understanding from the top level. It was considered crucial that to progress with any new parking strategy would require total support from the top managers and directors of BAA and also from other key companies at Heathrow such as British Airways, “it’s absolutely vital. They shouldn’t be just fully behind it, they should live and breathe it as well and this is where I get nervous because unless you’ve got your MD, your Chairman, your Directors who are not bringing their cars two or three days a week, who are supporting teleworking, who are videoconferencing and all these things to support car use, unless they actually do it then you haven’t got a hope” (BAA 1), “it’s essential, I think in this day and age the idea you can tell people what to do is nonsense…the top people will need to change their own behaviours if you want other people to change theirs.” (BAA 4). It was also felt that if one person from the senior management level, ideally the Managing Director, was to support the parking initiatives being proposed then it would make wider acceptance and support easier to gain, “you have to be leading by example to get change effected through the company” (BAA 5), “getting organisations to do things is quite hard work. It’s easy if the top man thinks it’s a good idea because then it happens, it’s much harder if they don’t acknowledge that they’ve got a problem.” (BAA 4). It was anticipated that gaining this support could be slow, but would happen. In certain cases it was considered that external factors such as the Government White Paper “The Future of Air Transport” and the potential development of a third runway or sixth terminal may be the factors required to make senior managers think more specifically about parking issues.

Other general cultural issues within BAA were also explored. It was considered that there was an overall lack of ‘joined-up’ thinking which was recently seen in a car parking context when charges were not increased at the end of the financial year, even though there was a drive to reduce car commuting. Similarly, BAA has a company car policy, “it’s certainly not a disincentive is it!?” (BAA 4). There were also cultural issues surrounding the way people worked and whether it was necessary to always be at the office. This was something that was recognised as changing with more people working from home, but further progression was considered necessary to promote a more flexible working culture which would relieve some pressure on car parks.

There was also regarded to be a negative culture around the idea of change, as explored in section 6.10, with BAA not wishing to “rock the boat” (BAA 5) by introducing something that would require a change to the way people traditionally do things, “there is resistance internally of making these things happen because it’s a significant change and the company is focussed on a large number of other priorities so doesn’t really have the time or resources to deal with this.” (BAA 5).

6.11.2 Culture of Individuals

The general culture of individuals was expected to have a bearing on the introduction, and subsequent success or failure, of a new car parking strategy. The lifestyle culture in Britain was considered to be one where people worked hard but also liked to make the most of their free time “and people just want their lives absolutely ordered so that they can fit in everything they want to do.” (BAA 1). To this end, the private car was regarded as the mechanism that allowed for this to happen. For example, it was appreciated that a large number of people took their children to school before coming to work, a factor that would make shifting to other modes of transport difficult. This precious nature of free time was further emphasised by one of the interviewees, “if it took ten minutes more by public transport it would be OK, but when it’s such a dramatic difference the impact of that on my quality of life would be so significant that it’s unattractive.” (BAA 2). The role of the car in people’s lifestyle balance was considered to be becoming more and more important, particularly when looking for a prospective employer, “the flexibility you have in your role, other things like pension,

car parking, IT infrastructure, they’re equally part of the decision process now as what your basic pay will be.” (BAA 5). It was thought that other lifestyle factors such as increased affluence have allowed most people to afford cars, which they then do not think about the cost of using and more generally, “there’s personal issues, organisational issues, Government issues, environmental issues, there’s so many things that are stopping people behaving differently.” (BAA 1).

The issues of status and expectations were also raised by the interviewees with respect to the culture toward car parking. There is considered to be a “pecking order” (BAA 3) in terms of car park permit allocation at Heathrow, particularly for the Central Terminal Area. Longer serving and senior members of staff, from all organisations, often feel they deserve the more

conveniently located spaces. The development of Heathrow over time was regarded by one interviewee to have been “quite car centric” (BAA 2), suggesting that Heathrow itself may be partly to blame for the expectations surrounding the car. Regarding the introducing of a parking charge there was a widespread belief that because direct charging of employees was so radically different and new, then the cultural change would be a difficult hurdle to overcome.

There is also regarded to be a general lack of effort on the part of many people to make any change to the way they do things. One interviewee stated that BAA surveys often reveal that people state they can not use public transport because it is regarded as taking too long and being too expensive, but other questions in the same survey reveal that they do not know the timetables or fares. Another specific issue was highlighted as being that staff often drive from the Central Terminal Area to BAA’s Heathrow Point West office complex and take up parking spaces, even though there is a free bus service.