View Full Version : BA pension and pay fiasco

WhoopWhoop Whoops
14th Mar 2004, 17:33
Rod our leader tells us we are in a mess.


His Solution

Raise our pension contributions to 9.5% or take a reduced pension.
as a further twist, the pay rise on offer is
1% this year
2% the year after, and
2% the year after that
A three year deal WOW!!!!!!!

Rod be realistic. No one will accept a pay rise below R.P.I.
no one will pay more into the pension scheme to pay for the inadequate company contributions during the Failing Ayling reign.

The best you will get pilots to agree, is a pay rise of least R.P.I.
and a
change in the pension calculator with a raise in the retirement age to the industry average to enable the Aeroplane Drivers to get a decent pension when they finish, and still reduce the pension hole. (1 billion no less!!).

Anything else and I must respectfully say you are in a dream world.

A common problem at waterside.

14th Mar 2004, 19:11
Lucky you, getting a pay rise!

We had nothing this year 1% last year and nothing the year before, count yourself lucky you're getting something!

14th Mar 2004, 19:21
Maybe if the company stopped paying a couple of hundred people to sit at home on full pay, and paid the market rates for other jobs ( I think we all know who we are talking about), then we wouldn't have to put up with this rubbish. Alternatively, stop paying RA his 1/4 mill a year pension.

14th Mar 2004, 19:21
BA pilots have been benchmarked for pay against similar european airlines. Any pay rise should keep BA pilots in line with colleagues across europe. Why should they expect less, since they are as productive as any in this part of the world?

Just a thought spannersatcx, are you and your colleagues in balpa?

Jim Kirk
14th Mar 2004, 20:47
Rod has realised that you guys have ripped the ring out of pay, allowances, pensions etc. BA cannot, and will not continue to subsidise you overpaid and inefficient pilots.

Get real. This is the real world. BA's share price is unrealistic.

Everything they touch turns to a can of worms.

Their pension fund is technically bankrupt, being funded by the people who are going to get less than half of all the jam stealers who are getting in excess of 80k at the moment.

They don't have two halfpennies to rub together.

IMHO, 1% is too much!

Welcome to the real world:p :p :p

The viking
15th Mar 2004, 05:41
Jim Kirk,

Let me see:

1: you applied to BA and you did not get through the tests.


2: You are not a pilot.


3: it is a wind up.


4: you are really that stupid.

Pick one.

Best regards

15th Mar 2004, 05:59
Many worthwhile comments here. Bare in mind though there are other staff within BA and the possible dispute at present has more to do with them at this time as they are the group who are most dissatisfied. BA pilots have to my knowledge made no comments at this time nor have the TGWU (ground staff) and the 'Mail' on Sunday article is unfounded and rumour with little foundation at this stage.

Da Dog
15th Mar 2004, 06:29
Whoop Whoop, you may wish to subscribe to the BA section on prune or if you are a BALPA member the forum on there.

Then managment stoges like Kirk and HZ123 won't be able to make crass comments for everyone to see:ok: :mad: :mad:

15th Mar 2004, 08:55
Jim Kirk:

You have issues that need dealing with.

Counselling (http://www.bacp.co.uk/)


Anthony Carn
15th Mar 2004, 09:26
No one will accept a pay rise below R.P.I.
How about a big fat zero for me this year ?

.........no one will pay more into the pension scheme to pay for the inadequate company contributions during the Failing Ayling reign.
This would be a Final Salary scheme, which for many is protected from inflation. My outfit will probably close ours when they've dug it out of debt (thereby legally permitting closure). Waste of space anyway, with no inflation protection.

Once again we see a demonstration of the State Owned mentality which still permeates BA, despite the fact that the botomless taxpayer-fed pot was withdrawn years ago.

Get real.

Or go bust.

I don't care which.


15th Mar 2004, 09:26
I simply can't believe that in today's world you can read comments from mature people "demanding" pay rises and refusing to face up to the reality of the pensions situation.

You must be living in some sort of dream world! Or are you assuming that you have some sort of god-given right to pay rises that couldn't possibly be justified by anyone with an ounce of business sense!

And, no, I'm not in management.....just using common sense.

15th Mar 2004, 09:44
Whatever happened to the good old British Stiff Upper Lip?

15th Mar 2004, 09:45

Couldn't agree more. It's a cut off your nose to spite your face scenario. We all know that there are truckloads of employees in BA who are surplus to requirements, many at home on full pay, but nothing can be done because of the threat of strike action.

BA is very nearly in deep trouble, financially. How sad that there is talk of a strike at Easter, just when the Company could hope to make some money to keep everyone in a job.

All efforts should be made to keep the final salary scheme, even if it does mean a zero pay rise in effect. Rather that than have your pension drop to a third, which has happened when such schemes closed elsewhere.

Happy flying! :{

15th Mar 2004, 10:04
Heard a great comment about BA pilots from a Lufthansa crew. Because we work so much harder than our German friends they call us "the Asians of Europe" as in "your shop is always open!"

Nice to see a bit of German humour...........

15th Mar 2004, 10:26
The best you will get pilots to agree, is a pay rise of least R.P.I. and a change in the pension calculator with a raise in the retirement age to the industry average to enable the Aeroplane Drivers to get a decent pension when they finish, and still reduce the pension hole. (1 billion no less!!).

I suggest you take a look at the details squire. BA pilots get THE best pension deal. The accrual rate is better than ground staff and the contributions (when compared to returns) are too low to meet the demands of the scheme.
I will swap yours for mine any day.
I am not knocking you but please pull your head out of the sand. Everyone in the airline is being offered the same pay rise and the same reduction in pension. You are not unique except in that you already have a very good scheme which betters any other department within the company. :*

15th Mar 2004, 10:49
I'm not a BA pilot, but I have to say I suspect a lot of the anti BA Pilot comments on this (and many other similiar threads) are indeed inspired by the Green Eyed Monster.

You guys who are telling the BA pilots to 'wise up' because you got a 'big fat zero' pay rise....maybe its YOU who need to wise up.

This profession has been slowly dragged down over the years by the readiness of some at the lower end of the pay spectrum to envy and undermine those at the other end.

Instead of knocking them...why don't you try JOINING them.
You will not improve your own weak situation one iota by dragging down those who fight to set the highest possible industry benchmark.

15th Mar 2004, 12:09
Turin, As I understand it, BA pilots get exactly the same benefits as everybody else. Our "pension calculator" is different to everyone elses to factor in the fact that we retire at 55 and not 65. The only reason we do ok is that our salary tends to be higher than most other workers in the airline (when we retire). Im sure you are aware that a lot of ground staff (ie dispatchers), cabin crew (LH) and management types "take home" far more than I do. Why do you think so many of us live abroad?

15th Mar 2004, 13:32
Dear maxy101,

My heart bleeds.


Dissatisfied with your 'measly' income ? Then why not blame those who, overwhelmingly, accepted the new wage structure.

Cabin crew making more than you, you poor, poor, benchmarked P2 ? Why not apply for a job as cabin crew then ?


p.s.: I think your cabin crew colleagues would be delighted to get 'the market rate' as per your suggestion. EZ are advertising a basic of 24 k p.a. Now, that's just a tad more than a B.A. new entrant on 10 k p.a. ...

15th Mar 2004, 13:35

Gotta say that I work for BA and am not a pilot. We have had the guts ripped out of our allowances over the last 2. Our department, Line Maintenance, has been cut from 130 engineers 5 years ago to 55 now.

I would happily take no pay rise this year to have a job 3 years down the road. Also would pay more pension to be able to retire with one!

Its no use going on about Bob A. You cant change the past. Lets think about the future and get on with it despite the [email protected] management we all have.



15th Mar 2004, 14:16
Green eyed monsters indeed Idunno.

I still can't see whatever explanation there is for people slagging off BA. Yes, people vote with their feet, but that is a difficult decision to make . Posting inflammatory comments on here does nothing to further the discussion so please refrain.

As the market leader (?) in the UK surely all the other airlines should be looking to BA to set the tone, not simply roll over and accept the management bullsh!t, and believe me, it is bullsh!t. all I can think is that most of these posts are not from professional pilots at all, but wannabes who have no idea about the real world of aviation.

I have no info on EZY payscales, but do you think that BA new entrants only take home 10k pa? And do you think that EZY crew take home any more than 24k pa? My missus is a long haul hostie for BA and she takes home just over 2000/month, after all deductions. I reckon that makes her take home around 40k per year. And I should know because we've got a mrtgage together. She's on the 'new' payscales. Not only does she earn that amojunt of money, but on a recent return flight from Boston, 5h40 flight, she had nearly 2 hours in the bunk. Now that's the kind of work I like doing for that money, whilst the 2 guys at the front sat there all night with no rest. And then had to go and drop the crew that were on a back to back off at the hotel before being allowed to go to their cars and start the journey home.

There are many areas within BA that are WAY over benchmark whilst we pilots are endlessly at the front of the queue when concessions are to be made. That will not be the case any more. All we need is to work to rule instead of bending over backwards to help out and the comapny will very quickly realise where the deadwood is.

I personally refuse to take any further reduction in my terms and conditions until the MT section is taken to account and the true extent of its 'Spanish Practices' are shown. And you can add getting rid of CSD's to that list as well.

Jet II
15th Mar 2004, 14:59
As I understand it, BA pilots get exactly the same benefits as everybody else.

Maybe - maybe not

I paste this comment from a different site to show the feeling that we are not all the same as far as pension benefits go.

These are the assumptions and i think they are realistic.

BA Technician Basic earnings ( 2004 ) 27000 -- Retirement age 60, started pension at 18, pays 5.25% contribution.
BA Shorthaul Captain earnings ( 2004 ) 85000 -- Retirement age 55, started pension at 18, pays 6.25% contribution.

Average age of death now is 80 by official figures.

Here is the basic premise.

>> Pays 1123PA for 42 years or 47178 ( 27000 - 6000 X 5.25% X 42 )
>> Receives 14000PA for 20 years or 280000 ( 27000 - 6000 abatement X 2/3 )


>> Pays 2437PA for 17 years or 41437 ( 45000 - 6000 X 6.25% X 17 )
+ 4937PA for 20 years or 98750 ( 85000 - 6000 X 6.25% X 20 ) = 140187
>> Receives 52666 for 25 years or 1316660 ( 85000 - 6000 abatement X 2/3 )


By the way - figures are not mine;)

15th Mar 2004, 15:22
Jet II I cant see an obvious flaw in your figures. What I would bet my pension on though, is that the actuaries have each group of staff profiled , hence separate accrual rates (different APS/NAPS). If the scheme wasnt cost neutral (whether through differing death rates, or increased compound interest calculations or perhaps a higher % of flight crew leaving or not drawing a BA pension), then surely they are not doing their job properly.
Flying Dutchman Im not sure what your problem is? I merely point out that not all flight crew in BA are highly paid and you start firing from the hip. Are you F/C or C/C? I dont get your point. Do you accept that some of our P2s should be earning more ? Unfortunately, I was outvoted in the restructuring ballot. I voted No, precisely for the reason that is manifesting itself now,in that BA are going to backpedal on a pay rise for the next few years.
If you are C/C in BA, do you think CSDs and some Pursers can be justified in taking home over 3000 quid a month? If so, why do you begrudge some of our pilots taking home less than 3000?
Can you see why some of these F/C might get a bit upset when they see this going on, and various other depts taking the mickey, whilst they are paid LESS than the going rate and everybody else is paid MORE than the going rate?
Then , to cap it all, fellow employees turn around and begrudge them a decent pay rise?
To those people not working for BA, this happens all the time...

15th Mar 2004, 22:29
Dear maxy101,

My point ? Well, I don't begrudge anyone a decent wage. Not you and not anyone else.

One day you too will be a P1, with lots of seniority, top of the bidline and on a very good wage and you will have put in the hours and the hard work to get where you are and you deserve every penny you get.

However, you are now at a stage in your career where people in other jobs make more money than you do and it seems to upset you.

Should you, by rights, always earn more than any member of cabin crew, or any other group of workers, no matter what ?

As for being paid 'less than the going rate', I keep hearing that Company pilots are now benchmarked and in line with other EU airline pilots. Are you saying that this is not so ?

Done to death in the private forum(s), but it would have been interesting to hear what your overriding concerns were when you voted against the new arrangements. Sadly, all water under the bridge now.

As an aside, did you mean to say: 'why do you begrudge some of our pilots taking home less than 3000?' ? ;)

Dear vasco,

I was comparing basic pay only. However, a 'new contract' cabin crew member earning 40 k plus would be quite something. Not heard that, or seen any evidence of it, before. That would mean Mrs. Vasco's making quite some Variable Pay. Is she fluent in Japanese ? If she is indeed making 40 k plus, then you and your mortgage lender must be delighted !

Also, if Mrs. Vasco managed nearly two hours in the bunks on a 5.40 hour Boston, then 2 x 2.25 hours breaks would have left 50 minutes to do two meal services, cabin checks etcetera. Or have I misread this ?

Now, I am sure the five minute detour via the Bath Road didn't kill the two guys at the front. If memory serves, the joint bus was given up voluntarily under a previous exercise and, moreso, perhaps the overtime payment should have been kept. Then the Company would have made sure stands were always available on arrival and the buses would definitely be running on time, don't you think ? ;)

'round midnight
16th Mar 2004, 08:39
I was under the impression you BA guys got a pretty good deal on pay in April 2003? Why are you already going back for more in the present economic predicament of your company and the industry? Why are yoo always demanding more? Are you not the best paid pilots in the UK already?

Incidentally, you might like to spare a thought for your colleagues at BACX who haven't had a pay rise in 3 years (5 years for some) - a Christmas voucher worth 35 pounds was sent to all staff 2 years ago - and are paid FDP at 1.50 (no change there in 10 years)......oh and money pucrchase pension only etc.

16th Mar 2004, 08:45

ref your calculation that 2 x 2.25 hr breaks leaves only 50 mins for cabin crew to tend to the pax - sadly very often CORRECT :(


Anthony Carn
16th Mar 2004, 09:38
You guys who are telling the BA pilots to 'wise up' because you got a 'big fat zero' pay rise....maybe its YOU who need to wise up.
The "wise" would note that BA is on the verge of becoming history.

As is my outfit.

I'll say again, for the hard of understanding ----- get real or go bust.

(BTW, slightly separate point --- BALPA does stand for British Airways Line Pilot's Association, does'nt it ? What hope for the pilots outside of the magic circle ?)

16th Mar 2004, 16:46
Anthony Carn Perhaps the point is the people athat are getting MORE than the going rate for the job should "wise up"?
Not many pilots in that bracket, im afraid. If we were, do you seriously think we would be complaining now?

16th Mar 2004, 18:15
MORE than the going rate for the job

Thats a contradiction in terms...what is the going rate? Who sets it? How does 50P sound to you? Fair enough?

The "wise" would note that BA is on the verge of becoming history.

And you think that pilots taking a pay cut (or no pay rise) will fix that? Really.
How big a pay cut by pilots will save BA?
Maybe 50P is indeed the going rate?

I'm glad you enlightened me though. I laboured for all these years under the misconception that good management was what made companies succesful. Silly me.

16th Mar 2004, 18:16
TURIN said in part.......

" I suggest you take a look at the details squire. BA pilots get THE best pension deal."

Aviate 1138
Funny but a recently[ year ago] retiring BA senior Capt 744 managed to persuade a divorce judge that he was nearly bankrupt and owed the Inland Revenue 300,000. What happened to his cash handout and his pension? Is there an inhouse scheme for pilots to avoid paying the 'other half'?


Aviate 1138

Human Factor
16th Mar 2004, 19:23
As for being paid 'less than the going rate', I keep hearing that Company pilots are now benchmarked and in line with other EU airline pilots. Are you saying that this is not so ?

In terms of cash, the basic Captain's scale is benchmarked against the equivalent companies (AF, LH, KLM). All other pay (longhaul, 'medium haul' and shorthaul increments as well as co-pilot pay) is based upon that. Therefore, in theory we are benchmarked.


For that same money, in terms of flying hours BA pilots work about 15% harder than LH, AF and KLM. Therefore, to be truly benchmarked, we need either a 15% pay rise or a 15% cut in work. Given the choice, I would choose the latter.

In terms of any of us working harder, certainly on Longhaul (747,777) an increasing number of us are hitting the 900 hour legal limit. For example, I reached 830 hours at one stage last year just on my normal roster without any overtime (which I'm too knackered to do). It is normal for a month's roster to encompass five transatlantic trips (10 crossings). The really junior blokes can get six and sometimes won't achieve CAP (the minimum amount of work we have to do before our pay is docked).

I, for one, would be prepared to strike to sort the company out. The pilots are not the problem in BA and I refuse to subsidise inefficienies in other parts of the company with below inflation pay deals and increased pension contributions. It is well known within BA that if you give anything up in the 'bad' times, you will never ever get it back in the good times.

In answer to those who say that striking will finish BA off, I agree totally. However, if the inefficiencies within other departments (they know who they are) are not sorted out, we will go bust anyway. I hate to say this but I have nothing to lose.

WhoopWhoop Whoops
16th Mar 2004, 19:51
Some interesting replies to my initial post.

The situation that ALL BA staff need to take into account is that

1. BA is not going to go bust it sits on 40% of the slots at LHR, the UK premier destination. The low cost operators cannot get in there. Each Slot is worth about 6 m. It may contract out of Gatwick but it will not go bust....... Its making money NOW.Why is the share price going UP?

2. If all the staff say yes to this pension hike they will pay it FOREVER.

3. BA 's contribution can go down again yours NEVER WILL.

4.The pension age could rise to reduce the liabilities without the staff having to put up hard cash to fill the hole.

5. If the proposed deal went through you will receive a pay reduction of 2% in the first year and in real terms after inflation a reduction of 5%, then 4%reduction in the second, then 4%reduction in the third year.

6.The 3% reduction due the pension hike is every year for the rest of your time with BA or in other words you will need a pay rise every year of at least 3% to JUST STAND STILL. never mind inflation.

7. BA is stretched for front line staff Engineers, Pilots, and Cabin Crew. Remember we were chartering the Bournemouth 747's a few months ago to run the timetable. WHY because WE COULD NOT CREW our own aircraft, our own aircraft were PARKED UP.

We have too many administrators and middle managers but that is for Rod to sort out.

The Boat has the right number of rowers just too many coxes.

Think on that one folks.

16th Mar 2004, 21:36
"Ba is not going to go bust......"

cf PanAm is not going to go bust
Laker is not going to go bust
Swiss Air is not going to go bust
Air Europe is not going to go bust
BCal is not going to go bust

How many comparisons do you want?

Your prolfile has your location as "Out of the loop". Come on back in to the real world. These are really worrying times for all airlines.

Jet II
17th Mar 2004, 07:10
Aviate 1138
Funny but a recently[ year ago] retiring BA senior Capt 744 managed to persuade a divorce judge that he was nearly bankrupt and owed the Inland Revenue 300,000. What happened to his cash handout and his pension?

I would suggest that this outcome has far more to do with the quality of his lawyer, than any deficiencies in the quality of his pension.;)

17th Mar 2004, 07:45
Before everone wastes more time hanging s**t on BA pilots,why hasnt anyone thought of tackling one of the biggest festsring
sore in the companys side, the cabin crew.The highest paid in the world(long haul of course).Make a comparison between them and virgin and you will have a shock Rod,probably best to go and relax on cottesloe beach in perth.

Wee Jock
17th Mar 2004, 10:17
A friend of mine works for BA, in December he and his wife were treated to Christmas dinner and The Dorchester (yes, that Dorchester, the one on Park Lane), and he's just come back from 2 weeks at a conference in America (week in Las Vegas then a week in San Jose).

He's not a pilot, cabin staff, engineer or check-in staff. He's an accountant.

Hands up all of the flight crews/engineers/check-in staff who were invited along to at least the Christmas dinner?


Human Factor
17th Mar 2004, 11:56
Christmas. Ahh yes, the season of goodwill and standby!

17th Mar 2004, 12:24
Whoop x 3
Even if BA do not "go bust" as a result of a strike (and they may), such action makes it more likely that BA will close the final salary scheme. This could force all those near-sighted employees to transfer to a money purchase scheme. Check what effect this will have on your pension before you dig your hooves in, please.


17th Mar 2004, 12:53
Would you be suggesting that with the imminent arrival of international accounting standards to UK companies, that accountants should be barred from going to conferences to be able to implement what is already a complex conversion for many companies, which could ultimately cost BA more in getting it wrong, and having to restate accounts and pay fines?

The Dorchester for Christmas lunch is however inexcusible, but then again, are those accounting and corporate reporting staff on contracts as good as flight crew enabling overtime payments, or ones like the rest of the accounting industry in the city, with long hours expected to complete jobs but no overtime payments available to compensate. Then this 'reward' could be seen in a different light.

The real source of waste is not the pilots' salaries nor many of the back-office staff who, for the majority, are hard-working. Poor working practices as displayed by the MT section who insist that returning to base after every trip is reasonable, that one bus cannot take both the cabin crew and the flight crew when going different places, that insists on excessive numbers of breaks is but one example of wastage. But is this just our perception or a true reflection of their working practices - don't think that outsourcing will be the answer as quality will fall through the floor, and schedules will be harder to maintain.

Perhaps rather than attacking every other group but your own (for there are more than pilots in this thread it would appear), look at your own area and consider what resources are really required and what you could really do without.

Attacking your fellow departments is all very well, but makes it far easier for them to be able to jusify swathing cuts - that may be inappropriately considered - to the wider group of employees. In the long run all groups are going to remain together in the company, so perhaps a look at the overall strategy might be more beneficial. Do you want a trolley dolly or a professional of high standards in your First product? Is your appraisal system strong enough to root out those who really should not be in their positions (guess the answer). Is the internal transfer pricing crap and designed to put you as a pilot group over the barrel in the case of BACX (absolutely yes).

As an appendix, debt structure is not particularly burdensome compared to some other companies - the credit lines arranged alone can cover uncertainties, and the Japanese banks with which BA have much debt are in many cases in a poor bargaining position compared to BA. Not an immediate worry considering the asset worth of the slots, which is, I believe, still off-balance sheet.

WhoopWhoop Whoops
17th Mar 2004, 15:42
Dear Parcel

A few points for clarification.

1. The BA final salary scheme is already closed to new employees.

The company recruitment blurb does not make that clear. The pension on offer to new employees is a standard money purchase like Easy Jet for example.

2. The company to change the current final salary schemes require the union and pension trustees to agree to a change. No strike is required, if we dont agree it cannot happen, its in the rules of the scheme.

3. The only option the company has is to close the scheme BUT thanks to the Maersk shipping case Mr.Blair changed the rules and BA would have to fork up 1 billion in cash to fully fund it before closing it. Thats the Law.

So suprize suprize, they only closed it to new employees which they can do within the law without finding the cash.

I never thought I would thank Labour but they saved our bacon there. If they had not made it law I am sure the existing final salary scheme for current empoyees would be closed by now.

For Info the only airlines that currently have final salary schemes for new employees are



Both have been under pressure to close.

I hope this answers your points.

18th Mar 2004, 17:07

2000 after tax/deductions = around 3500/month Gross.

Multiply x12 = around 42,000/yr.


And she's not fluent in Japanese. Just English, Rubbish and German.

Leander, Mrs. V doesn't read the forum, hopefully. So I can say that our low countries friend would be about right on the service front. She's a top girl, one of the best (hence why I'm with her), but the working practices of our CC colleagues need a serious overhaul.

18th Mar 2004, 18:23
What are the current contribution requirements for the BA pilot pension scheme?

Aer Lingus is, 21% company & 7% Pilot

Cruise Alt
19th Mar 2004, 10:05
You are getting a pay rise. Better than most.

Don't forget Nigel, if you are looking for Sympathy it is in the dictionary between S**t and syphilis.

19th Mar 2004, 10:20
Cruise Alt We are way past sympathy here ....we are just looking for the going rate for the job after years of subsidising the rest of the company. I speak for more than a few people when I say we dont give a f*** what the bloke down the pub thinks or what someones granny said last week. BA mgmt and the rest of the company know what the score is . More importantly, the long suffering line pilot is starting to realise they are being taken for mugs by the mgmt and the rest of the airline , all of whom seem to have a very nice lifestyle , thank you very much. It will be interesting to see what they and BALPA do in the next 3 months.

WhoopWhoop Whoops
19th Mar 2004, 15:18
Yes I agree Maxy101

The whole of Ba's frontline staff need to focus, Especially the Pilots because whether we like it or not WE lead the pack on IR.

The recent BA Management presentation on the intranet was over 40% on the need for the crew to cough up cash on the pension front.

It was like an appeal to the good and great, WHY? Because they need the staff to approve the changes to go ahead.

The best bit was the praise given to Aer Lingus for their high profit etc.

Aer lingus still have their final salary scheme for new entrants with only a 7% employee contribution and still MAKE MONEY.

WHY because they have a strong pilots union that says NO when things are going over the top, even when times were hard they were not taken in!!!!!!!

Follow the IRISH PILOTS.......BALPA do not buckle,the membership expects it.

19th Mar 2004, 16:04
Having read all the replies to the original post, all I can say is that BA employees are both lucky and unlucky. I am 19 and on a gap year working in actuarial consulting (in the cockpit is where I want to be!) and work with pensions on a daily basis. BA employees are unlcky in the sense that the pension scheme is not wound up and closed completely. That means there is a chance that once the bond and equity markets pick up the deficit will be reduced and perhaps wiped out, but that depends on the rate of increase of the scheme's liabilities. However, the downside is the increased contribution rates. If these are accompanied by increased employer contribution rates, you will be laughing all the way to the bank when you retire. If not, then I can only sympathise. You must remember that the value of a scheme fluctuates with the equity and bond markets and considering the size of BA's scheme deficit, I can empathise with the huge task they have of managing the scheme. I don't envy the trustees and the actuaries of the scheme at all.
Recent regulations do provide more protection for the scheme's active and deferred members, but the scheme's creditors, the tax man, and pensioners are better protected. The deficit of a pension scheme is calculated at a specific date, which in this case probably falls at a time when the markets were in the doldrums. At the next valuation, things should look better since market conditions have probably improved.
I must state that I am not a qualified actuary and am not liable for any consequences based on what is effectively my opinion. I work in pensions and am simply giving my views based on what I know. You should speak to a qualified IFA if you want more detailed information. I am quite happy to provide general information to Joe Public and give my opinion, but nothing specific. Hope this helps.

Human Factor
19th Mar 2004, 17:16
You are getting a pay rise. Better than most.

Er no.

The company offer encompasses increased pension contributions as well (permanent) therefore we'd be getting approximately a 2.5% cut. Not forgetting they'll probably want us to work harder. The fact that a change in the law to allow us to exceed 900 hours per year is needed seems to have escaped them.

Cruise Alt
19th Mar 2004, 17:31
If you want the going rate you should check the BALPA pay and pensions database. Take the statistical average for a pilot of a similar type then agree on the pay cut.

Look on the bright side fellers. At least BALPA can stop worrying about the pension cap for you hard done by milliionaires and get on with representing the majority of the industry!:ok:

PS HF - how many hours did you fly last year?

19th Mar 2004, 20:14
Cruise Alt...Glad you asked...just checked FICO....840 hrs ...Tell me again what a great deal I have here....If I was to come back again, I want to be a BA CSD. Money for nothing and completely untouchable.

19th Mar 2004, 21:57
Pay rise, what's a pay rise?
Company final salary pension scheme. What's a company pension scheme. In my company, retirement age for pilots is 60, but few of us can afford to retire then because of our wonderful pay (last got a rise 2 years ago). But, at least we're lean and mean, the company made a (fair and reasonable) profit last year and that means we have reasonable job security. It's time some of the people in some major airlines got real and realised that companies that don't make a profit go bust.

19th Mar 2004, 22:08
As usual everyone knocking BA Flight Crew - Usual envy, usual easy targets. The majority of BA crew do a fantastic job and deserve getting better pay and conditions than they currently get.
Of course there are a few who let the majority down, but that applies in every walk of life doesn't?

Neighbor of mine is a CSD, drives a BMW745i and jokes about how much he takes home compared to the 'drivers'.

WhoopWhoop Whoops
21st Mar 2004, 14:09
I see that The Independent has a front page story....

Amicus and GMB have said that they will oppose any pension hike.

Newspaper says possibility of a strike. I think that is premature myself.

It does show how the opposition is growing to this pension cash snatch, and not just amongst the pilots.

Rod will not succeed with this one.

21st Mar 2004, 15:16
anjouan BA is making a profit ! ;)

21st Mar 2004, 16:43
The Final Salary scheme is what made the company attractive to DEPs.

What would be the point in joining now or when they recruit again- to face years in the RHS when people can go to EZY or FR etc and get a higher salary over a period of time?

Vasco, FlyingDutchman etc

SCCM (CSD equiv) at easyJet usually take home around 1600 if they work hard and achieve good commission. A lot of them have only done the job for 1 year (20 yr olds plus). They work hard and deserve every penny, as i'm sure the BA CSD's do.

21st Mar 2004, 18:18
SCCM (CSD equiv) at easyJet usually take home around 1600 if they work hard and achieve good commission. A lot of them have only done the job for 1 year (20 yr olds plus). They work hard and deserve every penny, as i'm sure the BA CSD's do.

Just Facts :

BA sh csd , works approx 18-20 days a month , on average 7-10 years in company take home approx 2700-3100 .
BA lh csd , works approx 15-18 days a month , on average 12-17 years in company take home 3200-3600 .

Source BASSA pay comparsions

, plse remember these are just average figures and just for comparsion a BA SFO on the 777 at paypoint 8-9 on an average month of about 19 days at work will take home about 3600-3800

Now tell me these csd are worth that sort of money when they get as much as a longterm pilot in BA:mad:

Human Factor
21st Mar 2004, 21:07
Cruise Alt:

Without checking exactly, I managed around 630. However, I also had three months off work following quite a serious accident. Multiplying that up and taking into account leave would indicate about 820. Just before I went off sick, I reached the 'page' in the bid pack which gave a running total of 831 for the year to that point (rolling total). I don't do overtime or draft either!!


PS: 5415N, have you been reading my payslips?:D

21st Mar 2004, 21:32
HF :
nah , used to be one myself until I saw the light and went to SH , what am I saying !!! GET ME BACK TO LH PLEASE

22nd Mar 2004, 10:13

, plse remember these are just average figures and just for comparsion a BA SFO on the 777 at paypoint 8-9 on an average month of about 19 days at work will take home about 3600-3800

Well by my calculator that puts an F/O on about 80K PA,we all know the CSDs are grossly overpaid and BA are unable to correct it,however 80K for a F/O?
It came as a surprise to me, i would have guessed at around 50K to 55K,the SFO bit occurs by default i believe after 10 years ( for your info we only have 2 increments in engineering )

22nd Mar 2004, 13:02
Rimmer :
3600 x 12 months = 43,200 take home pay/year
assuming 30% tax loss (average for non tax element , 20% & 25% tax , and 40% tax )
gives a before tax take home of apprx 56,100 which is approx what a paypoint 6-7 SFO averages in BA also SFO2 starts at paypoint 4 and SFO1 at pay point 7

However engineers are also hounary pilots and valued as vital unlike the other people we have mentioned:D

Human Factor
22nd Mar 2004, 13:19
Well by my calculator that puts an F/O on about 80K PA.

Rimmer, can my bank manager borrow your calculator? :O

22nd Mar 2004, 14:02
Cruise Alt, anjouan et al,

I take it then that as you're so p!ssed off with your current employer you'll all be clamouring at the door to get in when the recruitment ads finally hit the streets.

Do please keep us informed how the interviews/tests go.

See you on line.

22nd Mar 2004, 14:37
5415N + HF

Well open to be proved wrong here but my calculator does things like this

Yearly Salary = 75000 ( reduced and conceded a bit )
40% tax threshold = 28400 PA
Pension = 6.5% of salary
NI = 7.5 % salary
Tax up to 28400 depending on code but average at 2760PA

75000 / 12 = 6250 PMC
Pension = 406 PCM
NI = 469 PCM
Tax up to 40% trigger = 230 PCM
Tax above 40% trigger = 1553 PCM

So 6250 - 406 - 469 - 230 - 1553 = 3592 PCM

Open to offers and it wont be the first time i am wrong but that was how my calculator worked it out!

However if i am wrong and senior F/Os get 55K you are under paid,in engineering we know we are under paid,i
dont need a calculator to do my own figures

22nd Mar 2004, 14:45
Averages tell us just that thus some may earn the sum stated but others may be earning nearly twice that. As an aside to this BA ramp workers with overtime are often earning well in excess of 30,000 some will be earning 35,000. They do not enjoy the long periods of time off but it reflects that perhaps there are many roles within BA that are over / under valued.

Bottom line pension is pay up or find suitable employment with others that offer such reasonable pensions.

Perhaps a pruner can tell me what will happen when the crew fraternity can stay until they are 60 in 2006. Are plans in place for pension readjustment or are the company just going to hope for the best.

Rod will probably leave early next year announcing his intention later this year and then Martin (batman) will bring in new hatchet men to break the present kinds of custom / practice and instigate changes required for T/5 operations.

Human Factor
22nd Mar 2004, 16:08

Just had a look at the payslip. In a full month (Jan), my gross was about 5700 (68400pa) including allowances. This gave a net of about 3700 (shocking, that's New Labour for you). Based upon six weeks of leave/DFW per year, knock off six weeks of allowances (flight pay, time away from base payment) which equates to about 250 per week on average (1500 gross pa). Give or take. This gives me a gross pay of around 67k pa and a net of around 42k. BALPA will tell you I'm benchmarked, even though I do 15% more hours than a contempory at KLM, LH or AF.

Hope this clears it up - and if I could vote the engineers a rise, I would.


PS: My basic pay (which is the one that counts I suppose is 51k).

22nd Mar 2004, 16:40
What can i say,as a honest answer we all deserve more,i know for a fact that the CSDs get 67K ( one of the guys in my section - his mum is one ) and there are engineering managers in jobs producing nothing on similar amounts.
For ourselves we get constantly upset having a bad day and getting grief from cabin crew,after all i could say Hello/Goodbye and Chicken or Beef,its not really rocket is it.
One thing i will add though from an engineering perspective is whenever we compare our shift pay / wages with KLM or AF all we get is the answer " market forces,if you dont like it F*** off " and thats an official quote from an engineering SM.


Sorry mate but i have read your post and dont know what on earth you are saying.

If its that the loaders can earn 30K a year with o/t then best of luck to them ( there must be that much work ).

Not sure what your comment about flt crew and 2006 means either,the age 55 retirement is a negotiated one not a CAA or UK Gov policy,that could be negotiated to change now if parties so wished.

Regarding the pension,NAPs was introduced to replace APS because APS was too expensive for the New BA,if the entire concept of NAPs relied on a FTSE average above 7000 then there are certain pension fund managers that deserve the sack,where it is today must ( and should have ) been viewed as slightly below the average,lets be honest the index wasnt at 7000 when NAPs was concieved

Human Factor
22nd Mar 2004, 17:27
"market forces,if you dont like it F*** off "

He sounds like a bit of a git actually, although I guess that applies to most jobs. For pilots though, if we choose to leave and join another company (VS for example), we would join at the very bottom of the seniority list as the most junior co-pilot, irrespective of whether we'd been a 20 year captain or a six year SFO - so if we want any sort of career, we're tied to the same company for life. This is why we need decent pay, pensions and T&Cs to encourage pilots to join us and stay for thirty years, 'cos we can't go anywhere else without losing everything!

22nd Mar 2004, 18:10
HF : I agree totally

Rimmer : excellant reply and speaking for myself I am constantly amazed by your( all engineers) professional approach and with a few exceptions your good humour.You guys work hard and to be treated in that way by your bosses is out of order.

NO CSD IS WORTH 67,000 pa



22nd Mar 2004, 22:17
One thing i will add though from an engineering perspective is whenever we compare our shift pay / wages with KLM or AF all we get is the answer " market forces,if you dont like it F*** off " and thats an official quote from an engineering SM.

I have heared the same thing from 3 engineering shift managers.

It does not really matter what someone earns, but it is the fact that the company are trying to shaft the work force once again.

When every company car, company mobile phone and little management empire has gone then it will be time to consider more cost cutting/pension increases but not untill all that has happened.

23rd Mar 2004, 07:25

With you on that.

Flight Ops management is still very generous to itself but insists the rest take an effective pay cut.

I'll be happy to oblige when their nest is as empty of feathers as mine.


23rd Mar 2004, 08:27
Hey are there any Management jobs available this year for suitable BALPA representatives?

23rd Mar 2004, 11:59
Something you want to tell the rest of the BALPA members, (ie non-Nigels) Blackball?

WhoopWhoop Whoops
23rd Mar 2004, 13:37
I see the new gov figures on average pay inflation in the UK are out.

3.5% ave pay rises for the public sector

3.0% ave pay rises for the private sector

Rod you have no chance with 1% less 3% or in other words


BA employees will be going DOWN relative to UK PLC by

5% and even more compared with GOV UK

Somebody in Waterworld needs to


23rd Mar 2004, 14:52
Interestingly Flt-It-W-Mitty, the much heralded, highly spun, pay deal last year was a pay cut for some, despite assurances to the contrary. Suddenly after its all dusted down, one senior Nigel BALPA member gets a Management post. I know its happened before and will probably happen again. It does however make one think.

24th Mar 2004, 07:15
5415N, I agree with you 100%:

no CSD is worth 67,000 a year

But look what's happened in the past when changes (to pay or numbers of) CC were made. Ailing Ayling tried and got a 2 day strike.

This is surely the real problem of BA - no wholesale reforms can ever be made because the party that feels the most maligned will simply strike; and BA can't afford that.

Surely the answer has to be better IR from BOTH sides. At the moment, all I hear is "If I don't immediately like it, I'll strike"... Rarely "If I don't like it, I'll negotiate".

24th Mar 2004, 09:06

What can i say,working for engineering we constantly get the short straw and are a very mild weak group,searching for things to say i think its best to give you an example.
Each year when it comes to pay NEGOTIATIONS our group puts forward a claim,its normally about 20 odd items and its been like that for 10 years at least,the management chuck out 19 of them and just talk about any basic pay increase,this year and the last 2 we have taken the view that " OK the industry is in the S***,September the 11th etc etc" - if we cant have a pay rise lets talk about things that cost very little such as staff travel,regrading schemes,long term increments etc - Were they interested - Were they B****X.

BA managers have a fixed agenda and only negotiate for things they want,i believe its a compound problem,the reason the company is in a mess is too many managers and in order to change things you have to try and negotiate with them > They are all S*** scared of making a decision.
Within engineering any manager that tells the engineering director " Nope i don't think that will work " doesn't get promoted or gets sent to some C*** side job,the ones that get promoted ( subject to lodge acceptance first of course ) are the ones that say " Sure all the lads will do permanent nights and take a pay cut while enjoying it "

BA managers don't negotiate because " One day it might affect them " they are in constant danger of some little kid telling the truth saying " The Emperor has got no cloths on"

WhoopWhoop Whoops
24th Mar 2004, 18:30

I totally agree with you. Those pilots and airline employees out there in other UK airlines that think BA pilots, cabin crew, engineers, etc. are overpaid think on this..........

Do you think you will get a larger pay rise if BA employees get less?

If we get less YOU will get an even worse deal.

Why because like it or not we are the largest and most unionised in the UK industry.

We set the benchmark for the industry.

If we get peanuts YOU will get half a peanut.

Anyone in the independent sector who negotiates paydeals knows that we set the rate.

Virgin for example is in a better position financially than BA.

Their representatives have not been able to negotiate a final salary scheme, or more cash for their crew in excess of the BA remuneration, and I thought Richard was a nice man who loves his airline and employees.

The fact is that we in BA are the pay and conditions ceiling, and it has to be kept up for everybody's sake.

Wee Jock
25th Mar 2004, 11:53
A bit of a late reply to Lucifer's rant about accountants conferences and Christmas dinners, but to answer some of his/her asumptions I don't, never have and never will work for BA, I'm not a pilot/trolley/dolly/engineer or accountant and I frankly don't give a hoot about balance sheets or how much slots are worth. I know money being wasted when I see it, though.

26th Mar 2004, 16:16
BA sh csd , works approx 18-20 days a month , on average 7-10 years in company take home approx 2700-3100 .


Sorry to shout, but the above quote about cc rates of pay makes me........ :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Wishing It Were True
28th Mar 2004, 21:50
I love the way this thread has gone from paying cabin crew 2000 per month to 67k for a CSD...

I am a Purser on Longhaul out of LHR who's been flying some twenty years.

Over the past 12 months my take home pay has averaged out at 1850 per month (22,200 nett).

By all available measures, I get a fair share of trips.

That is a simple fact. Not hearsay, not rumour, not some mother's son.

Believe it or believe it not, it remains the truth.

Well thats Me
28th Mar 2004, 22:21
Wishing It Were True

What can i say,i don't earn big bucks and by the sound of it neither do you, CSDs on the other hand do - How do i know this? well two ways ... >>>

Firstly, i have a relation who is a Longhaul CSD and makes at least 67K a year ( often more ) that has no problems confessing such each time i visit his 1/2 million pound home.

Secondly, I remember when i joined BA "" *?)^% "" years ago reading a article in the new ( to me ) BA news,it was from a DC10 flight engineer ( i was working the DC10 then that's what caught my eye ),he was moaning about having to work long sectors - Blah Blah Blah ( you know the bit ) and getting paid less than the chief cabin crew member " The CSD " .............

The BA response was " yes your right,this is a union agreed position with its Terms and Conditions,sorry but you will find the CSD earns more than the F/O as well " <<< think that last bit was BA attempt to make the F/E feel better.....

Wishing It Were True
28th Mar 2004, 22:46
Perhaps that's true, perhaps not - its not unknown for people to claim higher earnings in the belief it boosts their status.

And perhaps he might be on the old old contract, the one before the current old contract which precedes the current new contract :rolleyes:. The one where the NRA is still 60.

It does appear that an awful lot of people are very pre-occupied with what others, doing entirely different jobs, earn. I do not differentiate to the relative worths of the workers (sorry, I exclude the suits), we are all necessary.

When we joined the airline, we signed the contract and presumably were content with the total benefits package as offered... otherwise why take the job.

From time to time salaries and T&C's are changed by the company and / or our union representitives (though admittedly this has been one way traffic recently).

It is my understanding that part of the pilots recent restructuring was made possible by the fact that some extremely well paid senior Captains retired. No doubt the current flight crew community will not see those levels of earnings again.

I earn what I earn, which is admittedly more than those who joined on a post '97 contract. No doubt they will earn more than those responding to the current vacancies.

29th Mar 2004, 04:36
Some of the Flight Crew increase was also made by BALPA going back on its word of past agreements and dropping seniority from 20 plus years to 16 at LGW to provide more funds for LHR.
They have set a dangerous preceedent.

30th Mar 2004, 11:30
Wee Jock - don't worry, I hadn't intended to direct the whole rant at you!