Am I missing something here??
Isn't the issue here that BA have promised to pay their staff X amount when they hit retirement age, I the case of most posting here I guess 55, but now it looks like they're moving the goal posts and arent going to deliver for whatever reason, so could it be argued they are in breech of the original contracts these guys signed?
I think the bitching about whether or not certain groups within BA have been paid the market rate, above the market rate or a some have made it known they feel they have been under paid, is a bit of a red herring.
Most of you probably signed up because BA offered a good pension scheme and promised to deliver a decent package on retirement, in my opinion that is part of the salary, the Ts and Cs for staying long term with the company so in changing the rules to keep the bean counters happy BA have welched on a deal.
Not so sure I hold with the "would rather see BA go under" than accept the new terms, sure it's your pay so worth fighting for bt if BA goes under as a result of action surely you will all lose out?