Pensions
2 points re the pension issue. I may have jumped to the conclusion that the BALPA pension is indeed FS. The article doesn't say so only that the benefits are being attacked.
Secondly, to the doubters. I saw the presentation demonstrating VERY clearly that the monthly/annual contributary costs for an FS pension was indeed lower than the MP version. Annual cost is not the reason companies have leaped at the chance to close them. It is the risk/unknown factor. The day before 9/11 many pension funders were in surplus. The day after they were in serious poo. Companies prefer that you the pensioner carry that risk, not them.
As for the BALPA situation I only know what's in the article, so it's more about the principle of a Union imposing Ts& Cs rather than via negotiation & that union has a BA chairman & a BA majority on its Nat Exec committee. However you look at it, one can't help feeling some double standards are present here.