OK Mr freehills, why are so many of my contempories losing their medicals in their mid fourties? At 900 hours a year shorthaul "the BA way" you'd be lucky to get to our existing NRA of 55, let alone make it to the new proposed one of 65. BA's proposal amounts to fly at CAP 371 limits until you a) fail a medical b) fail a sim repeatedly or c) last-out till "retirement" by which time the environment you will have worked in for so long will have materially shortened your life expectancy in retirement.
I dont accept past BA mortality data based on an NRA of 50 and flying hours a third less than people average now. There is no comparison to today's BA.
Moving on from arguments about mortality data, within itself the "proposal" is skewed against flight crew: ground staff work for 2 more years to achieve the new pensionable age, pilots work for..............ten more years. Average loss of pension for anyone with around 15years to go or more to the the "OLD" NRA of 55 and who carries on to the new age of 65 - circa 40 to 45%.
I repeat - this "proposal" represents such a grievous assault on pilot remuneration whilst being skewed deliberately against flight crew as against other groups of staff that it CAN ONLY be designed to provoke a strike. That being so - what outcome does WW forsee flowing from the aftermath?
I suggest that the outcome he seeks is the contractorisation of BA flightcrew on terms that will astonish even the UK independant sector. I also suggest he will fail for one precise reason: BA pilots will not and can not accept this and will strike until WW is quietly removed back to the fair and green land of Ireland whence he came. Those that think WW can win better have pretty deep pockets because they are going to need them.
Last edited by ShortfinalFred; 18th Apr 2006 at 10:55.