BA Retired Staff Travel
Quote: If the agreement was worded, to the effect, "Staff Travel will continue in accordance with BA Staff Travel Manual, as amended" then I would say you are stuffed, really must look at the actual wording of the severance contract, I would be surprised if any loopholes had been left.
This is exactly the point I made. I would be absolutely stunned if it was not so. Why would you hand out unrestricted, limitless staff travel to people leaving the airline with a severance package but not offer the same to your employees?
I also seem to remember talking to someone who took severance at the time and am sure he told me he had ST for a period of years and then it expired.
I also definitely know of one character who started a business that drew on his contacts made whilst working for BA and that was not benficial to BA and he had his ST withdrawn.
This is exactly the point I made. I would be absolutely stunned if it was not so. Why would you hand out unrestricted, limitless staff travel to people leaving the airline with a severance package but not offer the same to your employees?
I also seem to remember talking to someone who took severance at the time and am sure he told me he had ST for a period of years and then it expired.
I also definitely know of one character who started a business that drew on his contacts made whilst working for BA and that was not benficial to BA and he had his ST withdrawn.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks!
Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to reply. It was interesting to read all the different points of view. Thanks especially to vctenderness and Flightwatch for their insightful and intelligent contributions. Apologies for my GFY post at the start! I just can't see any point in posting gormless and vacuous comments (JW411) to what was a serious enquiry which might have been of benefit to some of our colleagues.
My argument all along has been that I signed a CONTRACT of severance which consisted of one year's salary, a minute pension and staff travel privileges. BA are now arguing that ST is concessional, and can be withdrawn or altered at any time. BUT, surely not when the clause formed part of a contract. BALPA have been reasonably helpful to me, but have given up on the fight, their legal department coming down on the side of BA. BA's conduct in the matter is morally reprehensible and they clearly know that a single individual could not afford to fight this battle for years in court.
Should we really have expected anything else from the World's Favourite ?
My argument all along has been that I signed a CONTRACT of severance which consisted of one year's salary, a minute pension and staff travel privileges. BA are now arguing that ST is concessional, and can be withdrawn or altered at any time. BUT, surely not when the clause formed part of a contract. BALPA have been reasonably helpful to me, but have given up on the fight, their legal department coming down on the side of BA. BA's conduct in the matter is morally reprehensible and they clearly know that a single individual could not afford to fight this battle for years in court.
Should we really have expected anything else from the World's Favourite ?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cojones, I side with Parabellum & others who cast light on the Lawyer-type yuckspeack that is often hard to decipher. Friend of mine, after 17 years service with a National carrier was under no illusion that ST was an 'inhouse' benefit. The ST booklet clearly stated that the terms & conditions could be revised/changed at any time. His leaving letter from ST stated that "in recognition of your long service, the following applies"; quite generous, actually. However, that all changed and the minimum service qualifying time was 20 years. Gees, much protest and the company revised it to 15 ! However, facility was much reduced. He gets one free of charge in Business , with the company,plus unlimited ID50 & ID90,with other carriers, per year, until half the time of his service expires. Actually, again, not bad. He tried for a ID50 with Ryanair but got quite badly roughed up ! I changed companies too often to get anything and pay full fare, economy when I need to travel. But, lots of deals around might even beat the ID fares. Using my bus pass to head off down to sussex. Now THAT'S an excellent deal. Good luck with the fight.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like I will be struck off next year, I am rather bitter about it because my decision to help out British Airways' overstaffing problem and take redundancy was partly based on ST coming back sometime in the future. I still have my letter dated 17th February 1982 that says " When taken the concession will, of course, be subject to the regulations then governing concessional travel". So I guess they will always point to this as their justification. If I had stayed and done my time I certainly would be living well off the pension, but I do not think I would have had so much fun. I hope BA backtracks but, sadly, I do not think fighting a battle will achieve anything.
When taken the concession will, of course, be subject to the regulations then governing concessional travel"
That's exactly what I thought it would say. It's a shame but I don't think there would be a hope in hell of winning a case against BA on this.
That's exactly what I thought it would say. It's a shame but I don't think there would be a hope in hell of winning a case against BA on this.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One wonders why ST09 introduced the idea of denying retired staff the Staff Travel Concession after a time equal to their service time. I seem to recall that ST is not a cost item and actually generates income - after all Staff are the last on and only take a seat that would otherwise have been empty. And retired staff are right at the bottom of the pile so do not disadvantage anybody.
It is annoying as my wife - ex hostie - loses hers next year, but her brother in law - retired Qantas can use his Qantas concession on BA.
Also silly that had Hawker750 joined another airline after taking early retirement from BA, he would be able to use that airline's ST concession on BA. (Like many EX BA people joined Virgin and now use Virgin ST on BA)
It was a very mean decision on 2009.
It is annoying as my wife - ex hostie - loses hers next year, but her brother in law - retired Qantas can use his Qantas concession on BA.
Also silly that had Hawker750 joined another airline after taking early retirement from BA, he would be able to use that airline's ST concession on BA. (Like many EX BA people joined Virgin and now use Virgin ST on BA)
It was a very mean decision on 2009.
At least staff always knew that ST would be "subject to the rules at the time"
Customers are treated much worse by BA.
Despite promising long standing Gold Card holders that they would have "Silver for life", BA simply broke their word. Some people went out of their way to travel on BA to maintain their Gold card, giving BA extra revenue when they needed it.
Customers are treated much worse by BA.
Despite promising long standing Gold Card holders that they would have "Silver for life", BA simply broke their word. Some people went out of their way to travel on BA to maintain their Gold card, giving BA extra revenue when they needed it.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: new forest
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA`s ST deal
you guys have got it all wrong!
point 1. we understand that quantas changed the rules for current serving staff
and left all retired staff on original agreement.
to date we understand ba are the only airline to adopt the policy of stopping all ST for retired staff and treating them with total indifference.
point 2. ba staff who took severance/redundancy in the early 80`s where on a very special deal, as follows;
The government of the day wanted to "privatise" ba., but they could not because
ba was considerably overstaffed. they needed to "let go" at least ten thousand staff.
so a very special FANTASTIC deal was offered this involved a large lump sum and a very special staff travel offer. This offer was not a concession, but a "firm" offer of staff travel forming part of the contract to leave the airline under the special severance deal.
point 1. we understand that quantas changed the rules for current serving staff
and left all retired staff on original agreement.
to date we understand ba are the only airline to adopt the policy of stopping all ST for retired staff and treating them with total indifference.
point 2. ba staff who took severance/redundancy in the early 80`s where on a very special deal, as follows;
The government of the day wanted to "privatise" ba., but they could not because
ba was considerably overstaffed. they needed to "let go" at least ten thousand staff.
so a very special FANTASTIC deal was offered this involved a large lump sum and a very special staff travel offer. This offer was not a concession, but a "firm" offer of staff travel forming part of the contract to leave the airline under the special severance deal.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to have a car park place at the office I worked at - when I left I really didn't expect to keep it for the rest of my life
The T&C's that prevailed in the 70's & 80s were the reason BA almost went bust - it is ridiculous that 20+ years on people still expect them to hold.......
The T&C's that prevailed in the 70's & 80s were the reason BA almost went bust - it is ridiculous that 20+ years on people still expect them to hold.......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, Monkeybum!
That has been my argument all along. As I said earlier, BALPA did look at the situation, but their legal department decided not to take up the fight in court. I can't afford to fight the battle myself. But I feel that BA are still in breach of their severance contract with me in 1983. Ah, well just another kick in the bollox!
Last edited by cojones; 1st Aug 2013 at 22:13. Reason: text
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kerikeri New Zealand
Age: 89
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
staff travel
You'll be lucky; I have often found that BA retirees have the deepest pockets in the entire world.
No you are wrong,
Air New Zealand Pilots can peel an orange in their pocket single handed.
they are the tightest ever.
No you are wrong,
Air New Zealand Pilots can peel an orange in their pocket single handed.
they are the tightest ever.
Last edited by gulfairs; 2nd Aug 2013 at 04:02.
Many employers have "schemes" of one sort or another. Employees and/or pensionners "benefit" from schemes.
Very few of the schemes have been really tested in Courts.
One similar scheme for a very big Co was post-retirement BUPA/Health Insurance. (I say Very Big Co advisedly. BA is a Very Little Co. The only Big thing about it is its Pension fund. It is a little Co with a huge pension fund deficit attached.)
Senior Staff - including all the ex-Directors, who left this very big Co were entitled to Health Insurance along with their pension.
The first thing that Big Co did which started a bunch of QC letters was change from BUPA to another, cheaper provider for the pensionners.
QC letters were exchanged. Nothing happened. The change stayed in place.
The second thing was that the benefit was stopped at 65 years of age. More squealing, and more letters from QCs and ex-Chairmen - who were mates of the retired Directors.
Huffing and Puffing ex-Chairmen got nowhere.
Having got through that lot, the Co simply stopped the practice, so no-one got anything.
As a tip for you BA pensionners who can no longer go and see Auntie Maud in NZ, have a look at what "BA" or whatever it is called to-day are doing for the Directors Staff Travel Scheme. Look at both EDs and NEDs.
Very few of the schemes have been really tested in Courts.
One similar scheme for a very big Co was post-retirement BUPA/Health Insurance. (I say Very Big Co advisedly. BA is a Very Little Co. The only Big thing about it is its Pension fund. It is a little Co with a huge pension fund deficit attached.)
Senior Staff - including all the ex-Directors, who left this very big Co were entitled to Health Insurance along with their pension.
The first thing that Big Co did which started a bunch of QC letters was change from BUPA to another, cheaper provider for the pensionners.
QC letters were exchanged. Nothing happened. The change stayed in place.
The second thing was that the benefit was stopped at 65 years of age. More squealing, and more letters from QCs and ex-Chairmen - who were mates of the retired Directors.
Huffing and Puffing ex-Chairmen got nowhere.
Having got through that lot, the Co simply stopped the practice, so no-one got anything.
As a tip for you BA pensionners who can no longer go and see Auntie Maud in NZ, have a look at what "BA" or whatever it is called to-day are doing for the Directors Staff Travel Scheme. Look at both EDs and NEDs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will say zis only once more.....
Staff Travel Benefits in retirement (in my case, and others) formed part of a Severance CONTRACT. A CONTRACT cannot simply be discarded at some arbitrary date or at the whim of the company. I wonder if Big Airways would consider permitting retired staff to avail themselves of Hotline in lieu of full staff travel benefits. There are still a few half-decent deals on Hotline, although not many. I have a sufficiently large bank of retired colleagues who have said they'd be quite happy to obtain Hotline tickets on my behalf. So what's the difference? One correspondent made the very good point that retired staff of other airlines will still be able to travel concessionally on BA long after my privileges have been withdrawn. It makes me pint of Grolsch boil!
(Hawker750 - it sounds like we lived in parallel universes!)
(Hawker750 - it sounds like we lived in parallel universes!)
Last edited by cojones; 6th Aug 2013 at 13:42. Reason: addition of text
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless the CONTRACT stated that the terms and conditions of ST could not be changed then I suspect that your CONTRACT has not been breached. Indeed it probably states that ST privileges would be subject to the scheme rules extant at the time.
As I said before if BALPA will not touch it then it is probably a losing case and no amount of ire and the capitalisation of the word CONTRACT will help you in court. It seems this is a case of caveat emptor, put another way, you signed your contract, did you not understand or read the small print?
As I said before if BALPA will not touch it then it is probably a losing case and no amount of ire and the capitalisation of the word CONTRACT will help you in court. It seems this is a case of caveat emptor, put another way, you signed your contract, did you not understand or read the small print?
Last edited by Juan Tugoh; 6th Aug 2013 at 13:47.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's All, Folks!
I guess you're right. I did read the terms of the contract carefully. No doubt they'll be asking me to return the year's salary they paid me and the minute pension paid so far. All part of the CONTRACT!! (Sorry!)
I admit defeat.
¡Adios amigos!
I admit defeat.
¡Adios amigos!
Last edited by cojones; 6th Aug 2013 at 16:23. Reason: text
