PPRuNe Forums

Terms and Endearment The forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11th Sep 2017, 21:48   #61 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Barcelona
Age: 34
Posts: 189
NAPS is/was still a DB scheme no? APS is long gone. Seems like company have successfully played the divide and conquer Card in BA via pension. Up to your Union representatives to not allow pay rises to be split along lines of pension schemes but it seems like they've fallen for it.
The Mixmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Sep 2017, 22:02   #62 (permalink)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: pluto
Posts: 141

The annual increase in a DB pension is x 16 against an AA of 40k. Low/zero CPI. So lots of NAPSters are hit with a huge tax charge even with no additional input. A reduction in AA would mean an even bigger tax charge.

A reduction in tax relief would alter the balance between employee v employer inputs. High employee inputs (NAPS) would become less advantageous against the free money provided by an employer input (BARP 2).

Crunch the numbers after November.

Unfortunately, middle class pensions are a chancellor's cash cow.
blimey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 07:00   #63 (permalink)
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: London
Posts: 92
Guessing there will be no strike action ? Just bend over and get a good shafting ?
Snapper5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2017, 12:55   #64 (permalink)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 516
qwertyuiop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 20:55   #65 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 523
Pre Hamble guys retired at 50 on a full pension.Honeywell,who made 1.5 Billion usd last year closed there uk pension scheme with the reason ' Everyone else is doing it'
I've heard Virgin is considering changes to their scheme.
stormin norman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2017, 21:49   #66 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 2,361
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
Turin - I can remember back in the late nineties I did a layover in Jo'burg, BA used the same hotel then, in Rosebank, I think. In the hotel at the same time as us was the first Hamble cadet to reach retirement age, (possibly 55?), if what we were told was true and not a wind up this Captain was retiring with 100K lump sum and an annual pension of around 80K. Does this mean that you are now going to have to make do with an annual pension of only 65K?

I am not a BA Captain, or FO for that matter.

I was expecting about 37K, I am now looking at about 22k after the closure.

No Aston Martin for me I'm afraid.

Jet II
So its up to the individual to make sure that they have enough saved for a pension, nobody else.
Yup, which is what I and about 17000 other NAPS active members thought they were doing.

APS was the Golden age and there were plenty of complaints about them from those on NAPS - now the same is happening all over again.

So why should those staff on BARP accept less good pay rises simply to fund NAPS? - I was in NAPS and even I could defend that.
I have never heard any NAPS employee complaining about APS members, partly because some NAPS people were voluntarily bought out of APS. However most current NAPS staff joined on NAPS and accepted the employment on that basis, same with BARP. Its not like people were forced to join BA was it?

I understand the argument that NAPS members wish to retain the benefits they were offered when they joined because there is a yawning chasm between the retirement income you can expect as a BARP member and a NAPS one. This doesn't alter the fact though that due to the demographic and financial environment changes explained above it is simply not economic nor arguably right for BA to continue to fund gigantic pension contributions to a gold plated elite at the expense of the majority of employees. The truth is BA is making lower profits, paying out lower profit share, is less able to invest in new fleet and product because of the crippling and open ended commitment to a financially unsustainable pension scheme.
What are you on about? Gold plated elite? I am not talking about pilots on 80k + per year salary. There are a hell of a lot of other employees on very modest wages. I read about one today who was expecting 18K on retirement and is now looking at only 12K with only 4 years to make up the shortfall. Impossible.

BA is making record profits. In excess of 1.3 Billion for each of the last two years. It has just brought in two new fleets of modern state of the art aircraft (A380 & B787), all while apparently being hamstrung by the pension obligations.
TURIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 07:13   #67 (permalink)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 69
Posts: 227
I believe BA is just following a trend pension debt is going up everywhere, the most obvious is the STRP where the retirement age has increased and will increase again, the inflation index has been weakened by about 1% moving from RPI to CPI. The UK has a pension time bomb in that most public sector pensions are unfunded, this can only be honoured by raising taxes. Things are only going to get worse, much worse.
Walnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 23:09   #68 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Delta of Venus
Posts: 320
Two points.

1. If all of these large companies (multinational or not) are making "billions" in profit why are the dividends so pathetic? and therefore the income to pension schemes that invest in such companies. Where is all the money going? I know gearing is quite high these days as debt is "cheap" due to low interest rates but that can't account for all the money by a long margin.

2. A lot of the problems with the UK pension sector specifically can be traced back to the Thatcher government in the 80's and Browns tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late 90's.
Thatcher detested the defined benefit pension system because her ilk of "entrepeneurs" were prohibited from it, so the "private" pension industry was born, and we all know how well that turned out with the mis-selling scandal and p*ss poor investment returns from fund managers who got paid huge bonuses anyway (how very Thatcherite...)
Then along came "Broon" who decided to raise 5 billion a year (that the government could then p*iss away) by ending tax relief on pension scheme investment returns. That's at least 100 billion to date (plus lost returns on the shortfall), no wonder schemes are struggling. He'll have a nice MP's pension of course, not affected by investments. The man who stole your old age indeed.

Last edited by Private jet; 14th Sep 2017 at 23:20.
Private jet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Sep 2017, 06:24   #69 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 70
Posts: 376
The problem (well, prime among many) with Brown was he was an avowed Thatcherite. Said so himself!
KelvinD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Sep 2017, 08:30   #70 (permalink)

Probationary PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 2
First thing, I am not flight crew.
By my reckoning, when/if NAPS closes, I stand to lose a minimum of 68k over my lifetime if I live to an estimated age of 85.
That would be the difference if I took my pension out now at age 55 and if I left it to mature at 65.

I may be wrong but wasn't there a time when BA took a pensions "holiday" and made no contributions?
Wasn't the switch to NAPS2 and the Plan 60 and 65 supposed to secure this pension?

I also think that there is an ulterior motive to getting rid of NAPS. With the pension burden removed, it will be easier for BA to outsource ground services and other sections.
Unfortunately this has already started
englishrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Sep 2017, 10:27   #71 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: germany
Posts: 4
BA pensions "holiday" of many years was, we were told, because the APS fund was extremely healthy. Whilst BA stopped paying in, the staff did not.
Then the Chancellor helped himself to our future.
oscara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Sep 2017, 12:53   #72 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Planet Earth (sometimes)
Posts: 4,203
I may be wrong but wasn't there a time when BA took a pensions "holiday" and made no contributions?.
This is where it gets confusing ( for me at least) 'cos when we refer to BA pensions it could be one of (at least) the three different and independent schemes that can cover existing employees at BA.

As I understand BA never took a holiday from NAPs, they took one from APS, for the reasons stated by oscara...

And sorry, an utter numpty when to comes to pensions sums.
wiggy is online now   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:24.

1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1