Originally Posted by
Rimmer
GS Alpha
What your forgetting here is NAPs at present is very biased in your favour ( and could be said that fact alone means you have caused a far bigger part of the £2.1 Billion than I )
You could say that, but you'd be wrong. The pilots take out the same proportion of the fund as they put in. Don't take my word for it, ask the trustees. You could equally say that ground based staff are responsible for the size of the deficit as their total share of the deficit is greater than that of the flying staff. It would be an equally nonsensical and irrelevant statement. People are due what it says on their contracts. Thats what BA agreed to pay. This is an exercise in clearing the deficit, not redistributing wealth.
your saying that any future change has to take that into account, I say things are biased unfairly now and BAs original proposals were fairer than what's currently proposed.
Again, this is an exercise in clearing the deficit, not redistributing wealth. On what fair basis should BA rob from one group to pay for another? Would you like it if the pilots pay package was funded from your salary? I doubt it. So why should the pilots pensions fund yours? There's no point claiming NAPS is biased towards pilots. BA agreed to pay it and thats all that matters. We also pay higher contributions than you and BA pay higher multiples of our contributions than they do for you. Its all part of the fact we get better remuneration and whether your like it or think its fair is, I'm afraid, irrelevant.
"BALPA have done a good job and managed to make it so that the percentage loss to pilots is closer to other workgroups."
Yes they have and therefore meaning I and the check in girls on 12K will have to effectively subsidise your pension by the continued bias.
Can you justify that claim, rather than making vague allegations of 'bias'?
Nobody is going to be better off I think all the staff knew that, they also suspected BA would try a sweetener to a certain group, they also knew who takes more from the scheme as a percentage relative to payments in caused by increments and promotions - they basically knew it was a biased scheme but happy so long as BA FUNDED IT!
Once again, ask the trustees if the pilots take more as a percentage from the scheme than they put instead of listening to your friendly neighbourhood manager (and we know which of your managers was spreading that rumour). The truth will disappoint you.
" It is entirely possible that the Trustees and the pension regulator will impose a solution should acceptance be rejected. Then it will be seen how this proposal was clearly the best negotiated settlement available."
Not really - the regulator will act based on available information and instruct the trustees to amend the scheme to remove the deficit considering equally the effect on employees collectively - i may well benifit from as things are now based on the information he and the trustees now have.
Not really indeed. So long as the trustees are satisfied with the proposals they can implement them without the regulator getting involved. The trustees primary concerns are the protection of the accrued benefits and clearing the deficit. Fairness is not their issue or they might well have rejected the plan to raise NRAs by different amounts. Your faith in the power, and even the desire of the regulator to intervene is misplaced.
"BASSA in particular are leading their members in collective suicide. The pitiful understanding of the facts of life over the pension alone, not helped by reams of half-truths and spin, is laughable if it wasn't going to lead to such disastrous consequences for their members."
Such as ?
Such as their recent claims that the other unions conspoired to hold the pensions meetings when BASSA couldn't make it it order to stitch them up. Naturally they claim BALPA orchestrated this and have launched a rather nasty character assasination attempt against the first BALPA rep who dared to counter their claims