Reflexiones finales

The issues of flexibility and choice recurred throughout the interviews and covered many different aspects of the areas discussed. The flexibility of the private car was regarded as a major factor in people’s decision of how to get to work. In some cases it was regarded as

central to a persons ability to carry out their job effectively and it was also recognised that some people had no option but to use the car to travel to work for a number of reasons including where they lived, their start and finish times and public transport availability.

Employee work lifestyle balances were also considered to be increasing in their importance, with the flexibility contained within a role becoming a larger part of the decision making process when considering where to work. Issues such as car parking were regarded as making up a part of this flexibility.

Incorporating a large amount of flexibility into any new parking strategy was seen as crucial by the interviewees. This had to be apparent in terms of the ability to opt out of a financial incentive or disincentive scheme when required, “you’re more likely to get buy in if people feel they have the flexibility to get the space back if they need it” (BAA 5), and also in terms of other transport options being available to complement the core element of the scheme and offer a real alternative to the car, “there would need to be other solutions in place that would give me and others as close to as much flexibility as I have now.” (BAA 5). According to the interviewees, some other companies at the airport are starting to talk to BAA about introducing more flexible systems, for example American Airlines have approached and said

“we’d rather have

a system where we could buy people a travelcard and pay for some of their parking rather than the whole thing.” (BAA 1). Under BAA’s current scheme the respondents said that there was not the flexibility available to do this.

6.17 Implementation

There were strong views from all of the interviewees that whatever strategy was chosen as the most suitable way forward for the airport to solve its car parking problems, BAA should lead by example, pilot the new measure and be the first organisation to adopt it. This was considered to be beneficial in persuading other companies at Heathrow to support the scheme, “you’d have to start with BAA first, that would then enable or facilitate buy in of some of the larger organisations. You need to get a little bit of momentum…we have the power to make ourselves do these things and then start to get other people on board.” (BAA 5). It was also considered that BAA could then help other companies out with their implementation, “we can go to other companies and say “this is what we’ve done, this is the hardship we went through, these are the lessons we learnt, we can help you here”.” (BAA

3).

Certain areas of BAA in particular were seen as offering good pilot opportunities. The

“BAA Heathrow Point” complex of offices was regarded as a good pilot exercise location,

“round here where you’re dealing with a management population in what is clearly a very attractive parking arrangement right next to the office is probably a good place to pilot it. It also has the advantage when you roll it out to other people of saying “we started with the most cosseted group of staff before we moved on to anybody else”.” (BAA 2).

Human resource issues were also raised in relation to implementation. It was clear in the minds of the interviewees that the introduction of a new car parking strategy, especially one including some direct financial elements, could be difficult to implement, “we’d need to ensure that whatever was decided could be implemented without causing too many repercussions.” (BAA 2). Staff communication was regarded as very important and it was also felt, “the important thing if you’re doing anything like this is you’ve got to make the employees feel like they’re part of it and that it’s not being done to them.” (BAA 5). It was considered that the more time people were given to come to terms with the change, coupled with a “fair, honest and open” (BAA 1) approach, then the more staff would begin to accept the change.

Other implementation related issues discussed included who should be responsible for the roll out and introduction of a new strategy. The general consensus, and the way the current structure is intended to be, is that BAA should develop and lead the strategy but then the

“real business owners, terminal managers and those sort of people” (BAA 1) should take the responsibility for the actual administration of it. The way any strategy would be phased in was also raised which generated two different viewpoints; some interviewees regarded a gradual implementation as being the most suitable way to progress in order to retain the support of the workforce whereas others favoured a meaningful initial change to create a larger impact, “give people loads of warning but on day one “this is what it is”.” (BAA 1).

A gradual approach is already believed to be underway, according to the views of one of the respondents, “there’s been lots of gradual things, buses and car share, heightening the profile of Airport Commuter, “European Car Free Day”, “Bike to Work Week”, all those things have been happening. We’re doing survey work so people are now talking about it, we’ll soon be talking to the Unions so I think it’s all a very soft build up to start with, but there comes a point where you have to make it clear that this is real and begin a countdown

to a time two years down the line when something will happen.” (BAA 1).

6.18 Consultation

The interviewees regarded the process of consultation associated with introducing any new parking strategy to be very important and also complex. There were clear and unanimous views on who should be consulted, starting with top level management, then individual companies and finally employees. For an issue as emotive as car parking it was regarded as important to ultimately target every individual employee. Suggestions for achieving this included the use of forums, presentations, focus groups, newsletters and mail shots to each employee. It was considered that “in an ideal world all the employees would feel as though they had been consulted” (BAA 5) and “it needs to be so in your face that no one has the excuse to say “I didn’t know” or “I’ve not been asked.” (BAA 1). The groups to be initially consulted were considered to be major airlines and employers at Heathrow with assistance from the “Airline Operators Committee”, at the executive level in the first instance and then at a broader level. This high level of consultation and communication was felt to be important so that everybody understood the benefits of a new parking strategy, even if they felt uncomfortable with some of its components. Various ways of achieving this were suggested and their appeared to be a structure in place which would enable such consultation to take place, “we’ve got the change management framework in place so whatever scheme was proposed, the framework and template is there…it starts from identifying the stakeholders, then depending on the stakeholder groups what is the appropriate means of communication.” (BAA 5).

It was also recognised that the consultation would require a lengthy time frame, although estimations varied between respondents from six months to “at least two years, maybe three” (BAA 1). The perceived requirement for a long consultation was because of the likely negativity towards it from staff and the fact that several issues will have to be resolved before it can proceed, “the consultation process will be very very long, it will almost become a negotiation.” (BAA 3). It was thought that over time and as people began to understand the benefits then opposition and initial unhappiness would be overcome. In one instance it was suggested that the consultation process should be approached in a different way, “what you want is people to actually volunteer in. Maybe the consultation process would be saying

“we’ve got a problem, how do you want it solved?” (BAA 4).

The interviewees were also asked if there were any other experiences of similar consultation at Heathrow which could be drawn upon. The only comparison made was with Terminal 5 because of the impact it has on the community at large but overall the response was that there were no examples where something had been introduced that affected every company and every employee. It was also considered that BAA and Heathrow could perhaps learn from the way other companies had approached the consultation process when introducing new strategies