BA Retired Staff Travel

[cojones]

Is anyone (retired from BA) in the position of having their staff travel privileges with BA withdrawn in March 2014? I'd especially like to hear from anyone who took special severance in the 1980s in which staff travel formed part of the severance contract. If sufficient numbers are interested in pursuing this matter, we may be able to bring a class action against BA for breach of contract. To engage an employment law specialist would probably cost somewhere in the region of £5,000 so we'd need 50 retirees prepared to stump up £100. Let me know what you think
Thanks

[JW411]

You'll be lucky; I have often found that BA retirees have the deepest pockets in the entire world.

[cojones]

Thank you for such a constructive, persuasive, well presented and helpful comment.

[clunk1001]

...and polite too, it seems. HTBFYW

[yotty]

I can't see any part of JW411's post that deserves a GFY! Perhaps his/her's statement is a bit too close to home! :hmm:

[BALLSOUT]

we'd need 50 retirees prepared to stump up £100. Let me know what you think
OMG the BA pension musn't be what it used to be if they can only afford a hundred quid each.
Anyway, won't BALPA pay for it?

[vctenderness]

As Unite/BASSA can now verify Staff Travel is NOT contractual so it could not have formed a contractual part of any severance package.

There would have been a clause that allows BA to vary the terms of ST for those that took severance with an entitlement.


All retirees now receive ST for the length of service added to the date of retirement. So work for BA ten years retire in 2013 ST will expire in 2023.

[Juan Tugoh]

Interesting way of attracting people to the cause, going straight for the insult just because you didn't get the answer you wanted to hear.

Staff travel in BA changed in 2009, if you have used it since then, you will know that before you can proceed to making a booking there is a screen where you accept Terms and Conditions, which state that ST is not contractual.

Don't bother to reply, I'll anticipate it's wit and eloquence based on the evidence you have already presented.

[1965 BEA]

As far as I am aware, if severance or any other terms were agreed based upon inducements with regard to ST and these were put in writing at the time, neither party can subsequently change the terms of the contract unilaterally. This holds true for all contracts between two or more parties otherwise they would be worthless.

[vctenderness]

That's why, as I said in my post, BA would have included a clause that allowed them to vary the terms of ST.

If this was not the case those that left the airline with a severance package, would forever, have better terms and conditions than those still working for the airline or those who just retired.


For instance if BA changed ST to say that no one could travel in First under any circumstance the lucky old severees would continue to receive this privelidge when others would have lost it.

[1965 BEA]

Correct, it all depends upon what was agreed within the severance terms at the time. But if no such clause exists in regard to varying the T&C's of ST then the terms agreed cannot be modified unilaterally. And if there is mention of varying the future T&Cs of ST following severance, the precise wording would need to be examined for legal clarification and interpretation.

[vctenderness]

Not wanting to go on and on but.......it would surely just say that ST was included under the same terms and conditions that apply to others entitled.

If if did not then the legal department drawing up the severance terms would surely be the most incompetent department within the organisation.

[1965 BEA]

No that's incorrect if it was specified ST would be granted without time limits ... but it all depends upon the exact wording. Significant subsequent changes, such as time limits that were not existing when the original contract was struck could be seen as unfair and contrary to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/50)

For instance, would the severance offer in regard to ST, have been accepted if a time limit had been included?

BUT ... it all depends upon the agreed terms at the time and how carefully it was worded.

[millerscourt]

Let's face it in any Airline other employees are always resentful to a certain degree about Pilots, although they cannot do the job they think we are overpaid and under worked:{

[yotty]

millerscourt, it cuts both way dear chap. There are bound to be other jobs in the airline that pilots wouldn't have a "scooby-do" about! Though personally I think the vast majority of pilots do an excellent job and are a credit to BA.:ok:

[Flightwatch]

The whole BA staff travel business is a shambles. Whether it is contractual or not is an argument which BA have arbitrarily decided in their own favour without any input from those affected. I don’t really have any complaints as I shall be 89 when my entitlement expires and if I am capable of using the facility I shall be so happy (and surprised) I will gladly pay the full price.

However what I find particularly galling is the fact that through interline agreements, anyone with a retired staff entitlement with any participating airline will be eligible for ST on BA for life, after their BA counterpart has been binned. As I understand it virtually all other “legacy” airlines that offer staff travel to others do not place a time limit on retiree’s ST.

It is a poorly thought out diktat typical of today’s bean-counters who put no value on past loyalty or performance in a company. Had the new policy been put in place for those joining BA after a certain date then nobody would have been upset or inconvenienced, certainly all my generation believed that ST was for life, whether an entitlement or not.

[Tankengine]

Cannot comment on any other "legacy" carrier but Qantas gives staff travel for retirees of their years of service. Ie: work for them for 25 years and get ST for 25 years.

[Flightwatch]

Cannot comment on any other "legacy" carrier but Qantas gives staff travel for retirees of their years of service. Ie: work for them for 25 years and get ST for 25 years.

I stand corrected. However were you aware of this when you joined or during your service or was it changed during or after your time there?

Any others who similarly restrict ST?

[parabellum]

If the agreement was worded, to the effect, "Staff Travel will continue in accordance with BA Staff Travel Manual, as amended" then I would say you are stuffed, really must look at the actual wording of the severance contract, I would be surprised if any loopholes had been left.

[Phil.Capron]

With regards the legal department at BA it might just be/quite likely that they were in error but I wouldn't want to pay another lawyer to find out.

[vctenderness]

Quote: If the agreement was worded, to the effect, "Staff Travel will continue in accordance with BA Staff Travel Manual, as amended" then I would say you are stuffed, really must look at the actual wording of the severance contract, I would be surprised if any loopholes had been left.



This is exactly the point I made. I would be absolutely stunned if it was not so. Why would you hand out unrestricted, limitless staff travel to people leaving the airline with a severance package but not offer the same to your employees?


I also seem to remember talking to someone who took severance at the time and am sure he told me he had ST for a period of years and then it expired.


I also definitely know of one character who started a business that drew on his contacts made whilst working for BA and that was not benficial to BA and he had his ST withdrawn.

[cojones]

Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to reply. It was interesting to read all the different points of view. Thanks especially to vctenderness and Flightwatch for their insightful and intelligent contributions. Apologies for my GFY post at the start! I just can't see any point in posting gormless and vacuous comments (JW411) to what was a serious enquiry which might have been of benefit to some of our colleagues.
My argument all along has been that I signed a CONTRACT of severance which consisted of one year's salary, a minute pension and staff travel privileges. BA are now arguing that ST is concessional, and can be withdrawn or altered at any time. BUT, surely not when the clause formed part of a contract. BALPA have been reasonably helpful to me, but have given up on the fight, their legal department coming down on the side of BA. BA's conduct in the matter is morally reprehensible and they clearly know that a single individual could not afford to fight this battle for years in court.
Should we really have expected anything else from the World's Favourite ?

[slowjet]

Cojones, I side with Parabellum & others who cast light on the Lawyer-type yuckspeack that is often hard to decipher. Friend of mine, after 17 years service with a National carrier was under no illusion that ST was an 'inhouse' benefit. The ST booklet clearly stated that the terms & conditions could be revised/changed at any time. His leaving letter from ST stated that "in recognition of your long service, the following applies"; quite generous, actually. However, that all changed and the minimum service qualifying time was 20 years. Gees, much protest and the company revised it to 15 ! However, facility was much reduced. He gets one free of charge in Business , with the company,plus unlimited ID50 & ID90,with other carriers, per year, until half the time of his service expires. Actually, again, not bad. He tried for a ID50 with Ryanair but got quite badly roughed up ! I changed companies too often to get anything and pay full fare, economy when I need to travel. But, lots of deals around might even beat the ID fares. Using my bus pass to head off down to sussex. Now THAT'S an excellent deal. Good luck with the fight.

[hawker750]

Looks like I will be struck off next year, I am rather bitter about it because my decision to help out British Airways' overstaffing problem and take redundancy was partly based on ST coming back sometime in the future. I still have my letter dated 17th February 1982 that says " When taken the concession will, of course, be subject to the regulations then governing concessional travel". So I guess they will always point to this as their justification. If I had stayed and done my time I certainly would be living well off the pension, but I do not think I would have had so much fun. I hope BA backtracks but, sadly, I do not think fighting a battle will achieve anything.

[vctenderness]

When taken the concession will, of course, be subject to the regulations then governing concessional travel"

That's exactly what I thought it would say. It's a shame but I don't think there would be a hope in hell of winning a case against BA on this.

[beerdrinker]

One wonders why ST09 introduced the idea of denying retired staff the Staff Travel Concession after a time equal to their service time. I seem to recall that ST is not a cost item and actually generates income - after all Staff are the last on and only take a seat that would otherwise have been empty. And retired staff are right at the bottom of the pile so do not disadvantage anybody.

It is annoying as my wife - ex hostie - loses hers next year, but her brother in law - retired Qantas can use his Qantas concession on BA.

Also silly that had Hawker750 joined another airline after taking early retirement from BA, he would be able to use that airline's ST concession on BA. (Like many EX BA people joined Virgin and now use Virgin ST on BA)

It was a very mean decision on 2009.

[Ancient Observer]

At least staff always knew that ST would be "subject to the rules at the time"

Customers are treated much worse by BA.

Despite promising long standing Gold Card holders that they would have "Silver for life", BA simply broke their word. Some people went out of their way to travel on BA to maintain their Gold card, giving BA extra revenue when they needed it.

[monkeybum]

you guys have got it all wrong!

point 1. we understand that quantas changed the rules for current serving staff
and left all retired staff on original agreement.
to date we understand ba are the only airline to adopt the policy of stopping all ST for retired staff and treating them with total indifference.

point 2. ba staff who took severance/redundancy in the early 80`s where on a very special deal, as follows;
The government of the day wanted to "privatise" ba., but they could not because
ba was considerably overstaffed. they needed to "let go" at least ten thousand staff.
so a very special FANTASTIC deal was offered this involved a large lump sum and a very special staff travel offer. This offer was not a concession, but a "firm" offer of staff travel forming part of the contract to leave the airline under the special severance deal.

[monkeybum]

sorry i meant to reply to you, and include everyone else.sorry not just to you
"ancient observer"

[Heathrow Harry]

I used to have a car park place at the office I worked at - when I left I really didn't expect to keep it for the rest of my life

The T&C's that prevailed in the 70's & 80s were the reason BA almost went bust - it is ridiculous that 20+ years on people still expect them to hold.......

[cojones]

That has been my argument all along. As I said earlier, BALPA did look at the situation, but their legal department decided not to take up the fight in court. I can't afford to fight the battle myself. But I feel that BA are still in breach of their severance contract with me in 1983. Ah, well just another kick in the bollox!

[Juan Tugoh]

I'm guessing that if the BALPA lawyers looked at this and decided that it was not worth pursuing, then it is likely to be a waste of time and money doing so yourself.

[gulfairs]

You'll be lucky; I have often found that BA retirees have the deepest pockets in the entire world.

No you are wrong,
Air New Zealand Pilots can peel an orange in their pocket single handed.
they are the tightest ever.

[Hobo]

BA are now arguing that ST is concessional, and can be withdrawn or altered at any time

I think you will find this has always been the case.

[Ancient Observer]

Many employers have "schemes" of one sort or another. Employees and/or pensionners "benefit" from schemes.

Very few of the schemes have been really tested in Courts.

One similar scheme for a very big Co was post-retirement BUPA/Health Insurance. (I say Very Big Co advisedly. BA is a Very Little Co. The only Big thing about it is its Pension fund. It is a little Co with a huge pension fund deficit attached.)

Senior Staff - including all the ex-Directors, who left this very big Co were entitled to Health Insurance along with their pension.

The first thing that Big Co did which started a bunch of QC letters was change from BUPA to another, cheaper provider for the pensionners.
QC letters were exchanged. Nothing happened. The change stayed in place.
The second thing was that the benefit was stopped at 65 years of age. More squealing, and more letters from QCs and ex-Chairmen - who were mates of the retired Directors.
Huffing and Puffing ex-Chairmen got nowhere.

Having got through that lot, the Co simply stopped the practice, so no-one got anything.

As a tip for you BA pensionners who can no longer go and see Auntie Maud in NZ, have a look at what "BA" or whatever it is called to-day are doing for the Directors Staff Travel Scheme. Look at both EDs and NEDs.

[cojones]

Staff Travel Benefits in retirement (in my case, and others) formed part of a Severance CONTRACT. A CONTRACT cannot simply be discarded at some arbitrary date or at the whim of the company. I wonder if Big Airways would consider permitting retired staff to avail themselves of Hotline in lieu of full staff travel benefits. There are still a few half-decent deals on Hotline, although not many. I have a sufficiently large bank of retired colleagues who have said they'd be quite happy to obtain Hotline tickets on my behalf. So what's the difference? One correspondent made the very good point that retired staff of other airlines will still be able to travel concessionally on BA long after my privileges have been withdrawn. It makes me pint of Grolsch boil!
(Hawker750 - it sounds like we lived in parallel universes!)

[Juan Tugoh]

Unless the CONTRACT stated that the terms and conditions of ST could not be changed then I suspect that your CONTRACT has not been breached. Indeed it probably states that ST privileges would be subject to the scheme rules extant at the time.

As I said before if BALPA will not touch it then it is probably a losing case and no amount of ire and the capitalisation of the word CONTRACT will help you in court. It seems this is a case of caveat emptor, put another way, you signed your contract, did you not understand or read the small print?

[cojones]

I guess you're right. I did read the terms of the contract carefully. No doubt they'll be asking me to return the year's salary they paid me and the minute pension paid so far. All part of the CONTRACT!! (Sorry!)
I admit defeat.
¡Adios amigos!

[Paddy101]

I am due to lose my travel concessions in 1st April 2015 is there any way we can question this

[Heathrow Harry]

go to a decent employment lawyer........... or the union if you are in one