Presumably the regulator only rejected LH keeping the scheme itself as it was using a shell UK subsidiary with little or no assets. If LH at the parent level had guaranteed the subsidiary, there's no way the regulator would have turned it down. So for the LH spokesperson to say it was a last resort to put the scheme into the PPF is disingenuous to say the least.
Can't believe the lack of outrage on these pages....this is a very large and financially sound company abandoning its wholly owned subsidiary and it's pensioners to much reduced pensions, limited increases and no widows or dependants pensions. Whilst I'm not surprised at LH 's behaviour, it's morally reprehensible. Where's the Daily Mail you need it!