British airways pension to close.

[HOVIS]

Lots of news outlets reporting that BA are to close NAPS.

Sky News. BA to Close Pension (http://news.sky.com/story/british-airways-faces-union-turbulence-over-pension-plans-11024646)

Not happy. :mad:

[MaximumPete]

When will the Government act to protect the pensions we have bought over the years. This is life-changing for many but all the political parties show little interest in protecting our money.

Perhaps if MPs were in a similar position something would be done!

[ZFT]

Politicians have always looked after themselves first. Irrespective of party, country or ideology.

Pikes on Tower Bridge, Guillotines etc are all they have ever deserved.

[FlyMD]

And outside of Nigel, who exactly cares?........

[RAT 5]

Because if BA can impose such a change then others will be watching and planning to do the same. This 'cost saving' attitude is not in isolation. But living where you do, your location, I can understand the blasé comment.

[paradoxbox]

they should be required to pay out the pensions saved.

how is it any different from stealing money? this is cash people paid out of their paychecks, not just some imaginary benefit the unions created.

[Jet II]

Unfortunately the writing has been on the wall for years over the sustainability of NAPS. I was one of the lucky ones who got their money out but I do hope that those left behind are taken care of.

I do think there are questions to be asked of a lot of people not least the Trustees. The Stock market have boomed over the last 8 years but their investment returns havnt been anything as good.

[slast]

So you are no longer a member of either NAPS or APS?

[Jet II]

No - I transferred out when I left BA. It was an easy decision as NAPS (as opposed to APS) was in crisis for almost the entire length of my career with BA.

Hope those that remain dont lose any money over this change. What I suspect will happen is that any existing pension will be frozen and everyone will be put on a new money purchase scheme.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

FlyMD
And outside of Nigel, who exactly cares?........
Nigel is long gone its Rupert now days.

[TURIN]

I've worked out my losses. If BA close NAPS I have got about 15 years in which I will need to find £20000 per year to fund my pension up to the level I was promised. An impossible task on my current wage. Either BA will have to give me huge pay rise or I will have to leave for a better paid job.
The alternative is a 30% drop in my expected pension.

I'm sure Mr Walsh on his multi million annual salary will not be effected.

[GS-Alpha]

It will be interesting to see how many pilots leave over the next few years. In my opinion, long haul is becoming unsustainable on a full time contract if you want to live a long and healthy life, JSS is going to remove considerable control, and now the pension is going too. If they close it on the final salary you are on right now, rather than making it such that you only have your current built up years but you use your actual final salary upon retirement, then I think people will likely stay, but just go part time. If they close it frozen on the salary you are on right now, I think we will see people leave. And realistically, I'm sure that's the option they're going for.

[Enzo999]

Because if BA can impose such a change then others will be watching and planning to do the same. This 'cost saving' attitude is not in isolation. But living where you do, your location, I can understand the blasé comment.

All the other companies imposed those changes years ago, BA were the last man standing and just as PP34 was a "commercial" reality so is this! Back in the real world these people will still have pensions the envy of most, the worst hit 15 year guys will still get 25% of their final salary plus how ever many years sluming it with us in BARP, I struggle to sympathies too much.

[Tommy Gavin]

Final salary plan has become virtually unsustainable looking at the demographics. Defined contribution is, in my opinion, more fair.

[bex88]

Correct me if I am wrong but BA are looking to close NAPS to future payments and not closure of the entire scheme in itself. Members future contributions will go into BARP. The money put in will still be paid out to members and the 3.7 billion deficit should be covered over the next 10 years because BA is going to pump hundreds of millions into it to fill the black hole.....you never have anything until you have it and a pension can never be 100% secure. End of the day the talk of money being stolen is a bit off the mark. Is the reality not that people are taking out more than they ever put in?

[tubby linton]

DB pensions really are little better than pyramid schemes and rely on the young employees funding them to pay the pensioners. When they close the onus is put upon the employer to cover every eventuality without the employee being asked to share the hardship.
It can get to the point that the employer looks at the viability of the company when they are putting a huge amount into the pension scheme, with no discernible benefit to themselves or the success of the concern. I have seen the latter and the owners run away.

[MaverickPrime]

So this is part of cost saving measures as a result of the IT failures, according to the article. Interesting how the employees get shafted as a result of managerial incompetency. Foxtrot Oscar Alex Cruz, he couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery!

[IcePack]

I can see a BMA & Monarch situation in development initiating. But with that kind of deficit, will the PPF be able to take it over? What are the chances of the PPF having to reduce payments to ALL its members to cover the scheme. Or have I just described a pension V1 cut ! Worst case scenario typical pilot. Always the pessimist.

[average-punter]

PPF to step in used to require company going into administration... Although that didn't happen with Monarch so perhaps they could also be tempted with a stake in the company

[qwertyuiop]

BA/IAG are very profitable. Can't see how the PPF can get involved.

[easily_confused]

I've worked out my losses. If BA close NAPS I have got about 15 years in which I will need to find £20000 per year to fund my pension up to the level I was promised. An impossible task on my current wage.

If that is the case, that shows you how unsustainable yours and others pensions are unsustainable. I had my final salary pension closed and then put into PPF with Monarch.

Your pension will be frozen and believe me, will be worth a guaranteed amount which would eclipse my BARP pension, which by the way isn't a guarenteed amount like NAPS.

[Snapper5]

So what if a company is "profitable" , IAG could
Make £10billion profit but will still slash T&Cs to make £11billion .
Will never end

[PDR1]

It is rather depressing to see that pilots (of all people) can't get their heads around the idea that no amount of demanding and dummy-spitting for a flat earth can change the fact that the earth isn't flat.

A pension fund is a bucket of money which people pay into for a while with the idea of being paid from it when they retire. At any given time the law requires that if people stop paying into it there will be enough money in the bucket to cover all those who will be paid from it (that's why it is NOT a Ponzy scheme). The money in the pot is invested in a range of things, but they have to be largely low-risk investments, to maintain and grow the value in the bucket through capital growth and dividend payouts. Many company pension funds are invested in BA, so if you just grab all the profit and stuff it into the pension fund then the share price plummets, the dividends fall and the bucket develops a huge leak - if BA do it to other pension funds they you can bet those other companies will return the favour. Companies are only allowed to invest a maximum of (IIRC) 5% of the fund in their own shares - a rule that was brought in after Robert Maxwell to prevent fraud.

The value of the pension fund is based on three things - the amount people are paying in, the growth in value and return on the investments, and the predicted liability to pay out in pensions. To deal with these in reverse order:

When I was a lad back when Pontius was still hours-building towards his CPL the mean pensioner duration (the time from retirement to death) was about 8 years, and pension funds were calculated on that basis. Today we are all much healthier, so the mean pension duration is now between two and three times that (depending on which numbers you use and how). This means that the pension bucket for a given scheme and a given number of people needs to be 2-3 times the size that it used to be. People living longer means pensions will be more expensive. This is why gyms, jogging, bicycles, sports of all kinds and healthy foods should all be heavily taxed while tobacco, alcohol, sugar, TV movie channels, cars, comfortable sofas and any product with more than a spoonful of sugar per portion should all be provided free-of-charge on the NHS. That would return life expectancy to a more reasonable number (say 73) and make decent pensions affordable again.

When I was a lad any half-competent fund manager could easily make 8-10% per year on investment returns and the good ones could do nearly double that, so the pension bucket was sat under a fire-hose which just haemorrhaged money into it as a matter of course. Since 2007 investment returns have plummeted. A really, really GOOD fund manager might be able to make 2% from low-risk investments (the only kind pensions are allowed to use), so the bucket now merely sits under a slowly dripping tap. More than anything this has crippled the ability of the fund to generate the cash it needs to meet future pension obligations without increasing the price.

Before 2005 a typical contributory final-salary pension took 3-5% from the employee and about double that from the employer. With the sort life expectancy and the decent investment performance that was sufficient. But due to the two things discussed above it no longer is, leaving the fund with three choices:

1. Quit now, freeze the scheme so that it can cover its existing liabilities at a known cost while it's still do-able.

2. Increase the contribution rates to fill the bucket as fast as the cash is leaking out.

3. Change the whole basis of the scheme from being a pension ("we will pay you some defined proportion of your salary, no matter what it is") to being a savings scheme ("we will take your money and invest it in this fund and when you retire we will give you your own part of the bucket to spend as you wish") - these are the "defined benefit" and "defined contribution" concepts respectively.

The above describes the real world and how it has changed, and no amount of tantrums or handbag thumping will change it. So choices have to be made. My own employer took two routes - it closed the final-salary scheme to new members, but kept it going for existing ones by nearly doubling the contribution rates (both employer and employee) so that where I used to pay 5% as a contribution I now pay 9%. For new members it created a new scheme which was a "50-50 defined contribution/defined benefit" scheme. Half the contributions paid into a pot that would deliver a 33% of final salary pension after 40 years (essentially half the "traditional" pension rate) while the other half would go into a savings scheme that will provide and additional bucket of cash on retirement - this was regarded as the best compromise between shared gain and shared pain. To make this viable it needed to transfer a billion squids-worth of assets into the pension fund and then pay rent on them. But not all companies can do this.

So it looks like your pension scheme is going through the same trauma and it's going to cost you some pain. Well suck it up, because it's already happened to most of the rest of us and that's the world we live in.

PDR

[Cuillin Hills]

The Monarch owners, quite simply, didn't wish to meet their obligations to the Monarch Final Salary scheme.

The UK government, and the PPF, were next to useless under pressure (and threats of closing the company) from the Monarch owners.

BA/IAG may be profitable but if they have no desire to meet their obligations (and the deficits) in the various DB pension schemes that their employees are part of - they won't meet those obligations.

BA/IAG will have watched, and gained confidence, from the employer handling of the Monarch and British Midland FS pension schemes.

The more aware employees of BA would have watched what was happening at MON and BMA and would have , quite correctly, been worried.

What happened at Monarch and British Midland, in respect of pensions, was criminal.

[Jet II]

Never trust any pension scheme.
Although not related to BA my dad lost a huge amount on his pension. It's practically worthless now and the money he paid in is sickening.

Don't rely just on a pension, got to have other investments.

It is cases like this that made me change my mind from preferring Defined Benefit schemes to the Defined Contribution system. Yes the DB scheme in theory pays out more but the DC system is safer for the individual.

[squeaker]

This actually may be a blessing in disguise. Once you've accrued PPF level benefits in a DB scheme it may be a good idea to stop there and start contributing to a DC one instead. At least you know that pot is your money that nobody else can pinch (apart from HMRC, that is).
Many big companies with even bigger DB deficits (BT etc) will be actively looking at ways to get out of their DB pension obligations. And don't rely on the Regulator to take any sort of enforcement action against IAG either, they are utterly toothless.
As a victim of the Mantegazzas pension theft at Monarch I speak from experience.

[Cuillin Hills]

...........but even if your Final Salary pension is below the PPF annual limit you will still lose 10% of your annual pension once the PPF take on the liability from the employer.

I do agree with you, squeaker, that the closure of the Monarch DB pension was a blessing in disguise as it allowed the individual (if young enough) to start amassing a DC pension that is a lot easier to control and less exposed to thieving b@5*@rds.

The upside of the PPF is, in theory, it should be as safe as anywhere as it is protected by the government.

[TURIN]

Originally Posted by TURIN
"I've worked out my losses. If BA close NAPS I have got about 15 years in which I will need to find £20000 per year to fund my pension up to the level I was promised. An impossible task on my current wage."


If that is the case, that shows you how unsustainable yours and others pensions are unsustainable. I had my final salary pension closed and then put into PPF with Monarch.

Your pension will be frozen and believe me, will be worth a guaranteed amount which would eclipse my BARP pension, which by the way isn't a guarenteed amount like NAPS.


Just done the sums again, its £300000 not £200000.

BA is making record profits. The directors of IAG and BA are paying themselves huge salaries.
In the meantime, they are plundering the airline and it's employees for more and more cost savings.
It NEVER stops.

The greed stinks!:mad:

[ReallyAnnoyed]

I hope you have a "0" too much in there. Otherwise, you must have expected a very generous pension.

[Tay Cough]

One has to question why IAG feels it can afford to spare £500m to spend on a share buyback (which will inevitably boost the share price) yet won't contribute additional funds to NAPS.

[A320ECAM]

Absolutely disgusting.

WW and AC will both have lovely pensions once BA has been further destroyed but the hard working people at the bottom of the food chain will not! I've even heard that Cruz's hi-viz jacket will have a pension as well, which is handy considering he wears it inside!!

[bad bear]

When the pension was closed to new entrants it was a certainty that the pension would close to further accrual as soon as the "new entrants" became more than 50% of the work force, it was only a matter of time. A package with an improved pension provision for the new entrants would sway any vote against retaining the final salary scheme. Even if people had tried to head this off 20 years ago they would not have been likely to succeeded. Final salary schemes were great for the generation before but sadly not likely to be around for future generations, except perhaps politicians?

[UAV689]

This country is sleep walking into a huge disaster.

Rising house prices, generations of people that will be renters.

What happens to these renters when they retire. Many are on low paid work, with a pension that will pay about £100 a month..in 30 years i really do worry for what state this country will be. There will be millions on the bread line.

[Jet II]

One has to question why IAG feels it can afford to spare £500m to spend on a share buyback (which will inevitably boost the share price) yet won't contribute additional funds to NAPS.

Fixing NAPS wouldn't have been a one off £500m - it would have been an indefinite commitment and now that BA is simply a subsidiary of IAG that commitment has to be weighed against other costs in the group.

[TURIN]

I hope you have a "0" too much in there. Otherwise, you must have expected a very generous pension.

Depends what you call generous.

If BA get away with closing NAPS I will have an expected shortfall of approx £15000 a year.

My back of an envelope calculations may be wrong but (I think) to service £15000 a year I will need to build up a pension pot in excess of £300000.

In the time I have left to do that I would need to put away something like 50% of my current gross salary, every year until I retire.


If that is the case, that shows you how unsustainable yours and others pensions are unsustainable.

Really? I can't see Walsh, Cruz and the rest of them struggling in retirement can you?

[Max Angle]

A package with an improved pension provision for the new entrants would sway any vote against retaining the final salary scheme

There isn't going to be a vote, its closing and that's that, a done deal.

[parabellum]

Turin - I can remember back in the late nineties I did a layover in Jo'burg, BA used the same hotel then, in Rosebank, I think. In the hotel at the same time as us was the first Hamble cadet to reach retirement age, (possibly 55?), if what we were told was true and not a wind up this Captain was retiring with 100K lump sum and an annual pension of around 80K. Does this mean that you are now going to have to make do with an annual pension of only 65K? ;)

[ReallyAnnoyed]

Turin, what you wrote is that you need to pay in 300000 per year. That would give a pretty good pension!

[bex88]

I have no idea about NAPS but BARP works out something like this. 35 years contributions at 12% employer and 14% from me gives a pension estimated to be 55k on a average return. A poor return give 18k. That is just a current snap shot and does not account for increases to salary over your career. Its not industry leading but it's not bad either. Perhaps with the closure of NAPS and a improved BARP the amount people expect to be down will be more acceptable when faced with the realities of the defecit.

[wiggy]

Parabellum

....this Captain was retiring with 100K lump sum and an annual pension of around 80K. Does this mean that you are now going to have to make do with an annual pension of only 65K?

Those numbers would have been quite credible at the time, but you are at least one step behind in terms of BA pension schemes....

That captain would have been on the defined benefit scheme called APS, which closed to new entrants a long long time ago (? mid 1980s?), there are a relative handful of employees still on that scheme.

The next scheme was NAPS (defined benefit) that closed to new entrants perhaps 15 years ago (?) .a fair few current employees still contributing to that - I guess a few high earners might retire on that scheme on 65k FWIW I know I won't...and that is the scheme that is now being debated as being up for closure to future contributions......

The current active company schemes are various iterations of BARPS and I'll let somebody else comment on the benefits of those....(Edit: I see whilst I typed bex already has )

(Yes it would have been the Rosebank, but like APS it was a long time ago)...

[Desk-pilot]

I have some perspective from both sides of the coin as I worked for BA many years ago in a different capacity and so have a few years service in a NAPS pension but re-joined a few years ago as a pilot and have a BARP pension.

It is a fact that many long serving NAPS pilot members were retiring on pensions in excess of £100k p.a. at age 55. This is an absolutely unbelievable retirement lifestyle partly because it's an incredibly generous pension figure and partly because you could draw it at such a young age and with modern life expectancy spend 30 years on the golf course with your Aston Martin parked outside the clubhouse.

I understand the argument that NAPS members wish to retain the benefits they were offered when they joined because there is a yawning chasm between the retirement income you can expect as a BARP member and a NAPS one. This doesn't alter the fact though that due to the demographic and financial environment changes explained above it is simply not economic nor arguably right for BA to continue to fund gigantic pension contributions to a gold plated elite at the expense of the majority of employees. The truth is BA is making lower profits, paying out lower profit share, is less able to invest in new fleet and product because of the crippling and open ended commitment to a financially unsustainable pension scheme.

Unfortunately as other posters have pointed out the world is changing and not for the better. Those of us in our middle years wonder how the heck we're going to ever pay our mortgages off, the young can't even imagine how they will ever buy a property. Those coming up to retirement won a demographic golden ticket. Their training was funded entirely by BA, they enjoyed 24 paypoints, they bought houses in the 1970's for peanuts that have now spiralled in value far far above any rise in incomes, they enjoyed incredible guaranteed pensions funded largely by their employer and they savoured long layovers in the suites of 5 star hotels beside aquamarine oceans. It was a golden age but the world has changed beyond all recognition sadly (and I sincerely mean it when I say sadly!!)

I am no lover of modern airline mgt teams, I am a NAPS and BARP member and am socialist and strongly pro-union by nature but even I can't find a convincing argument to continue with NAPS at the expense of the majority of BA employees. I only hope that BA will enhance BARP significantly in return for the savings it will make by closing NAPS (which will benefit all) as I certainly don't want the money saved to just get funnelled into even more bonuses for our 'leadership? team'

[wiggy]

DEsk-pilot

It is a fact that many long serving NAPS pilot members were retiring on pensions in excess of £100k p.a. at age 55.

As a long serving NAPS pilot member can I ask if you sure you have the right scheme? The training/lifestyle/pensions benefits you describe sounds awfully like that supposedly enjoyed by the "Hamsters" who were on APS (and best of luck to them).

I'm not sure but I suppose 100k p.a. might just perhaps be possible on NAPs for a select few (perhaps max AVCs, training/management pensionable pay scales) but I'd hazard an educated guess that it certainly isn't the norm, and guys certainly aren't bailing out at 55 looking at anything like that amount.

As an aside:

The truth is BA is making lower profits,

:confused:

[The Mixmaster]

The truth is all IAG care about is shareholder value and increasing profit as they have done every year. Cost cutting is a big part of this and labour cost is always in their headlights. Have all NAPS members reached 1 million DB funding cap? If so, it makes no sense to continue scheme. If not then this is IAG transferring wealth from employee to shareholder as they are wont to do.

[Jet II]

This country is sleep walking into a huge disaster.

Rising house prices, generations of people that will be renters.

What happens to these renters when they retire. Many are on low paid work, with a pension that will pay about £100 a month..in 30 years i really do worry for what state this country will be. There will be millions on the bread line.

Meanwhile people will be flocking to shops later this week for the 'pleasure' of spending $1000 on a new iPhone......

[hunterboy]

Or signing up to a 24 month contract at £50/month to be able to join the iClub. Astounding.

[Skornogr4phy]

I'm sure people back in the day never spent a portion of their pay packet going to the pub, or buying the latest records etc. Not all money has to be spent purely on surviving (food, water, accommodation). If they'd rather spend their money on a phone rather than going down to the pub then so be it.

[Capewell]

Back in the day I spent most of my pay packet on ciggys, booze, women and music. The rest I just wasted...


I'll get my coat

[Jet II]

I'm sure people back in the day never spent a portion of their pay packet going to the pub, or buying the latest records etc. Not all money has to be spent purely on surviving (food, water, accommodation). If they'd rather spend their money on a phone rather than going down to the pub then so be it.

Of course they are perfectly entitled to spend their money as they wish - however then they shouldn't bitch 40 years later when they have no pension.

[The Mixmaster]

So having no pension is due to buying iPhones rather than management's relentless cost cutting?:ugh:

[Jet II]

Your Pension is Your responsibility.

If you want to offload that responsibility to somebody else (be it management or the government) then you cant complain about what you get.

[The Mixmaster]

Actually a defined benefit pension is administered by Trustee's and it is they who hold the responsibility for day to day running of such a pension. DB pension law states that deficit is addressed via funding proposal from Trustee's or ultimately by the employer. IAG has multi billions in cash reserves, where do you think management want to deploy these cash reserves...pension for loyal, hard working employee's or maybe just maybe they are incentivised via bonuses to reduce employee cost!

[PDR1]

Meanwhile people will be flocking to shops later this week for the 'pleasure' of spending $1000 on a new iPhone......

Proving the old adage about the best way to mik sheep being to bring out a new iPhone...

[blimey]

Hammond's autumn budget might change the DB v DC argument considerably.

[qwertyuiop]

Please explain why you think this.

[Jet II]

Actually a defined benefit pension is administered by Trustee's and it is they who hold the responsibility for day to day running of such a pension. DB pension law states that deficit is addressed via funding proposal from Trustee's or ultimately by the employer. IAG has multi billions in cash reserves, where do you think management want to deploy these cash reserves...pension for loyal, hard working employee's or maybe just maybe they are incentivised via bonuses to reduce employee cost!

There is no legal issue that stops IAG closing their DB pension, after all many other companies have already done so. In this day and age nobody should expect pension arrangements to remain cast in stone - FWIW I have a letter from the DWP stating that I have paid in enough years of contributions to get a full State Pension - well I had until the Government changed the rules and now I dont have enough years.

So its up to the individual to make sure that they have enough saved for a pension, nobody else. Instead of spending $1000 on new iphone buy a new android for $250 and invest the difference - you will then reap the benefits in years to come and you can still make phone calls in the meantime. .

[Trossie]

There will be millions on the bread line.In global terms that will be an extremely affluent 'bread line'!

[The Mixmaster]

At same time Jet II, in this instance you have a company which announced 2 billion plus profits last year and cash reserves many multiples of that, closing a DB scheme which although in deficit is but a mere drop in the ocean compared to their balance sheet. DB Pension funds across the world are struggling mainly due to historically low interest rates post 2008/9. This will not always be the case. I question why a fellow pilot's sympathies lie more with a company who promotes shareholder value at the expense of its employee's rather than with his fellow professionals.

[Jet II]

As has already been pointed out, NAPS was closed to new entrants years ago - many BA staff are already on BARP so are on a less generous pension scheme. APS was the Golden age and there were plenty of complaints about them from those on NAPS - now the same is happening all over again.

So why should those staff on BARP accept less good pay rises simply to fund NAPS? - I was in NAPS and even I could defend that.

[The Mixmaster]

NAPS is/was still a DB scheme no? APS is long gone. Seems like company have successfully played the divide and conquer Card in BA via pension. Up to your Union representatives to not allow pay rises to be split along lines of pension schemes but it seems like they've fallen for it.

[blimey]

qwertyuiop

The annual increase in a DB pension is x 16 against an AA of £40k. Low/zero CPI. So lots of NAPSters are hit with a huge tax charge even with no additional input. A reduction in AA would mean an even bigger tax charge.

A reduction in tax relief would alter the balance between employee v employer inputs. High employee inputs (NAPS) would become less advantageous against the free money provided by an employer input (BARP 2).

Crunch the numbers after November.

Unfortunately, middle class pensions are a chancellor's cash cow.

[Snapper5]

Guessing there will be no strike action ? Just bend over and get a good shafting ?

[qwertyuiop]

Blimey..thanks

[stormin norman]

Pre Hamble guys retired at 50 on a full pension.Honeywell,who made 1.5 Billion usd last year closed there uk pension scheme with the reason ' Everyone else is doing it'
I've heard Virgin is considering changes to their scheme.

[TURIN]

Turin - I can remember back in the late nineties I did a layover in Jo'burg, BA used the same hotel then, in Rosebank, I think. In the hotel at the same time as us was the first Hamble cadet to reach retirement age, (possibly 55?), if what we were told was true and not a wind up this Captain was retiring with 100K lump sum and an annual pension of around 80K. Does this mean that you are now going to have to make do with an annual pension of only 65K? ;)

HA!

I am not a BA Captain, or FO for that matter.

I was expecting about 37K, I am now looking at about 22k after the closure.:mad:

No Aston Martin for me I'm afraid.


Jet II
So its up to the individual to make sure that they have enough saved for a pension, nobody else.

Yup, which is what I and about 17000 other NAPS active members thought they were doing.

APS was the Golden age and there were plenty of complaints about them from those on NAPS - now the same is happening all over again.

So why should those staff on BARP accept less good pay rises simply to fund NAPS? - I was in NAPS and even I could defend that.

I have never heard any NAPS employee complaining about APS members, partly because some NAPS people were voluntarily bought out of APS. However most current NAPS staff joined on NAPS and accepted the employment on that basis, same with BARP. Its not like people were forced to join BA was it?

I understand the argument that NAPS members wish to retain the benefits they were offered when they joined because there is a yawning chasm between the retirement income you can expect as a BARP member and a NAPS one. This doesn't alter the fact though that due to the demographic and financial environment changes explained above it is simply not economic nor arguably right for BA to continue to fund gigantic pension contributions to a gold plated elite at the expense of the majority of employees. The truth is BA is making lower profits, paying out lower profit share, is less able to invest in new fleet and product because of the crippling and open ended commitment to a financially unsustainable pension scheme.

What are you on about? Gold plated elite? I am not talking about pilots on 80k + per year salary. There are a hell of a lot of other employees on very modest wages. I read about one today who was expecting 18K on retirement and is now looking at only 12K with only 4 years to make up the shortfall. Impossible.

BA is making record profits. In excess of £1.3 Billion for each of the last two years. It has just brought in two new fleets of modern state of the art aircraft (A380 & B787), all while apparently being hamstrung by the pension obligations.
:mad:

[Walnut]

I believe BA is just following a trend pension debt is going up everywhere, the most obvious is the STRP where the retirement age has increased and will increase again, the inflation index has been weakened by about 1% moving from RPI to CPI. The UK has a pension time bomb in that most public sector pensions are unfunded, this can only be honoured by raising taxes. Things are only going to get worse, much worse.

[Private jet]

Two points.

1. If all of these large companies (multinational or not) are making "billions" in profit why are the dividends so pathetic? and therefore the income to pension schemes that invest in such companies. Where is all the money going? I know gearing is quite high these days as debt is "cheap" due to low interest rates but that can't account for all the money by a long margin.

2. A lot of the problems with the UK pension sector specifically can be traced back to the Thatcher government in the 80's and Browns tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late 90's.
Thatcher detested the defined benefit pension system because her ilk of "entrepeneurs" were prohibited from it, so the "private" pension industry was born, and we all know how well that turned out with the mis-selling scandal and p*ss poor investment returns from fund managers who got paid huge bonuses anyway (how very Thatcherite...)
Then along came "Broon" who decided to raise £5 billion a year (that the government could then p*iss away) by ending tax relief on pension scheme investment returns. That's at least £100 billion to date (plus lost returns on the shortfall), no wonder schemes are struggling. He'll have a nice MP's pension of course, not affected by investments. The man who stole your old age indeed.

[KelvinD]

The problem (well, prime among many) with Brown was he was an avowed Thatcherite. Said so himself!

[englishrob]

First thing, I am not flight crew.
By my reckoning, when/if NAPS closes, I stand to lose a minimum of 68k over my lifetime if I live to an estimated age of 85.
That would be the difference if I took my pension out now at age 55 and if I left it to mature at 65.

I may be wrong but wasn't there a time when BA took a pensions "holiday" and made no contributions?
Wasn't the switch to NAPS2 and the Plan 60 and 65 supposed to secure this pension?

I also think that there is an ulterior motive to getting rid of NAPS. With the pension burden removed, it will be easier for BA to outsource ground services and other sections.
Unfortunately this has already started :(

[oscara]

englishrob
BA pensions "holiday" of many years was, we were told, because the APS fund was extremely healthy. Whilst BA stopped paying in, the staff did not.
Then the Chancellor helped himself to our future.

[wiggy]

I may be wrong but wasn't there a time when BA took a pensions "holiday" and made no contributions?.

This is where it gets confusing ( for me at least) 'cos when we refer to BA pensions it could be one of (at least) the three different and independent schemes that can cover existing employees at BA.

As I understand BA never took a holiday from NAPs, they took one from APS, for the reasons stated by oscara...

And sorry, an utter numpty when to comes to pensions sums.

[Angry spanner]

Hi all, read most of this thread and found quite a lot of incorrect info.

As of 2016, 75% of the NAPS fund was invested in equity and property, 25% was in bonds and guilts. The fund grew in 2016 by 2.7 billion. Most of this increase is not company contribution or employee contribution or deficit reduction payments, its return on investment.

Please be clear, NAPS fund is not all invested in low yield bonds. However the deficit calculation uses the assummed yield of low yield bonds.

I am waiting for a reply from BA at present related to figures in their 2016 end of year accounts, they are published and available on the internet. In it, in employee benifits, section 31 i think, are figures from 2015 and 2016, the one I am most interested in is the remeasurement of liabilies. In 2015 it was 363 million-a positive figure, in 2016 its about (4500)-a negative figure.

So in one year through changing assumption you get a change of nearly 5 billion? I'm not buying it.

Mortality rates have been flat between 2010 and 2017 (official figures) These changes in predicted life span have not been factored in to the equation to estimate deficit.

IAG have an active bid now for Air Berlin, 7th largest european airline that has resently failed. I dont know what part/ parts IAG are bidding for and I believe it is unlikely they will win their bid, but they are bidding.

850 million was given to share holders 2016/2017. (dividend and share buy back) Mr Walsh has predicted at least 10% increase in dividend year on year until 2020.

I have simpathy for those BA employees that are in BARPS, it is a poor DC scheme that will not provide a suitable level of pension. I apposed its introduction and actively inform my colleagues of how poor it is and that I believe a DC scheme needs to have a contribution level of 25% to return a desent level of pension. I joined BA 32 years ago and part of my deferred pay was a NAPS pension that I paid 5.25% for, a great benifit. (It costs significantly more now and is diluted). Those that have joined since 2003 had BARPS. That is not my fault, my doing or something I like. Please remember this was BA's doing, not NAPS members.

I could continue for some time but will cut to the chase, I do not believe there is a massive black hole in the NAPS pension fund. I believe the method used to calculate the future liabilities is extremely inaccurate, perhaps deliberately. British Airways/ IAG is now and predicts in the future it will continue a strong financial position of profitability and growth. This is not the profile of a company that can not afford is legal obligation to its pension schemes.

It will be difficult to stop BA closing NAPS. The best way I can see is a court case that challenges the assumptions to create the deficit and the ability for BA to support the schemes. Please petition your unions to take on this case should the trustees agree to rule changes that allow closing for future accrual.

Beyond this the DC scheme that they plan to provide instead of NAPS and BARPS is still a poor provision. Combined contributions of at least 25% are required, this level is not available to anyone short or long term and needs to there for all, permenantly, not just some.

This issue could bring all employees together irrispective of age profession or date of joining. It needs to to help ensure all of our futures.

[stormin norman]

Very little out here on what actually is on the table Vs other airlines.
You cannot propose change without options.

[MaximumPete]

Quertyuiop,

It's dead easy to get rid of a pension scheme into the PPF via a shell company worth as little as £1. The shell company is liquidated and, hey presto, the scheme enters the PPF.

That's what happened to the bmi pension fund and was regarded as a spectator sport by the politicians. My MP did his level best to help but was thwarted by his elder brethren.

[pax britanica]

I was fortunate enough to have a final salary scheme -not BA - but a former state owned company privatised by the wonderful Mrs T .

It always amazes me that people rightly criticised Gordon brown but then his successors do absolutely nothing to correct the situation, in some senses they are worse than heim because they actually see how the idea works out.

In todays world of no one having jobs for life and living longer it is hard to sustain final salary schemes butt heir are much much better models (Canada and France ) to name two than the UKs shambolic approach which puts all the risk on the pensioner and none on the unregulated (in practice not theory) provider . Companies avaoid making pension contributions whenever they can (so called holidays) even though it is straight from the 'University of Bleedin' Obvious' that lean years will follow good years (but of course the senior management will have left after about 4 years so its not their problem.

yet another situation where to be quite honest we (ie the majority of the population , would be better off not having our country run from Westminster .

[PDR1]

Companies avaoid making pension contributions whenever they can (so called holidays) even though it is straight from the 'University of Bleedin' Obvious' that lean years will follow good years

Actually the reality is different (as ever). Companies were never at liberty to just take contribution holidays - they were contractually obliged to maintain contributions. In the 1980s the Thatcher givernment accused companies of "hiding" profits in pension funds to avoid corporation tax, and theatened to tax the pension fund surplusses. Companies could only avoid this by approaching the regulator and getting permission to either (i) transfer money out of the fund back to the company or (ii) stopping contributions for a period to allow the surplus to dissipate. So the "pension holidays" were mandated by the Thatcher government, not greedy senior executives.

But hey, lets not pollute this thread with any actual facts - we've managed to get to page 4 without that happening so far...

[bex88]

New BARP will at the top end be 8% employee contribution for a 14% company contribution. It's a small improvement because the maximum was 12%. There are various other tiers too but essentially for most of them you benefit even if you will have to pay in a little more. Those who pay in the current standard 6% would loose out unless they increase their contributions to 8%. It was deemed to be an improvement for BARP members but not NAPS members. As far as I know the current offer is NAPS members to BARP2 with some sort of financial payment and BARP members to BARP2 with no financial payment. I think it's relatively comparable to other companies, unlike the command pay for the new captains.

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

A very small 2% increase but only if we put in an extra 2% too. Hardly setting the world on fire is it. I, like many others, take advantage of the smart AVC scheme so put in a bit extra anyway but of course with the caveat that I have the option to stop those at any time if money gets tight one month. I also note that the current ratio hasn't been maintained. If IAG want us to put in an extra 2% I would expect the company to put in and additional 4%, in line with the current 1:2 ratio being 6% and 12% respectively. This becomes 8% and 16%. I really don't see that as unreasonable and while 2 and 2 is a starting point, it shouldn't be the final result.

That said, I've got mates that have just lost their jobs at MON and frankly I feel a bit of an arse discussing how much our pensions are increasing by at such a sad time, but we mustn't let core t's and c's decline further.

Many will disagree but just my thoughts.

[bex88]

A very good point I had not considered. I too make use of smart AVC's. As has been said on BARP you need to be looking at combined contributions of around 25%. As BARP members the only leverage we have to improve the deal lies in the hands of NAPS members. From yesterday's email it looks like rather than improve the BARP2 offering the company are looking to offer a financial settlement to NAPS members only. I am up at the 25% combined level and the extra 2% would be welcome but I think any additional is going to go towards a stocks and shares ISA because of accesibility in the medium term.

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

Yeah I'm just not sure what the future holds for pensions tbh. The government want us all to have them but then sees fit to dip their paws into our money every few years with cunning rule changes. Fiscal responsibility just isn't rewarded anymore, it's seen as the rich sitting on big nest eggs for the treasury to take a bite out of whenever the chancellor fancies it.

You're wise going down the multi prong route to retirement security. I'm doing the same albeit with property. Although landlords are being hammered too :*

Back to the BA situation....I read the various emails (albeit not all of them ) and noted that NAPS will be given a sum of money to kick off their BARP2 accounts while current BARP1 members will get what their given and be happy with it because it's "an improvement". I would argue that it's not really an improvement. I would also argue that, while I completely get the NAPS members frustration and concerns, it's unfair to divide the workforce in such a way and continuing to do so only weakens us, which is of course why big companies use such methods. I firmly believe that we should be resisting the divide and conquer tactics once and for all. I'm very happy to support my NAPS colleagues at every opportunity and hope for the same in return.

[bex88]

The only thing you can do that's wrong is not pay in. I would like to do something with property after a recent inheritance for my kids but I don't see much reward as a private landlord with one property. I would only be one bad tennant away from being stuffed. I was told to invest in precious metal so I bought myself a Husqvarna dirt bike. It was £7500 last year and now I see this years model is £8300 so my bikes gone up in value right? Great advice 😎.

Onto BARP, the cash payment is not offered to pilots but I believe they are being offered 7.5k into their pension pot. I doubt that will make much difference. I hope this time finally the older guys will fight for a better deal and bring us along for the ride. In my experience this does not happen and division rules. Look at everything that has been proposed in the last 5 years. If we voted no we were then told to vote again until we got the right answer. What BA wants it gets. I would be surprised if it was improved on further but it is an improvement and with a bit of compromise, responsibility and lower expectations it should work.

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

It's much harder with property in the current market, we bought ours right at the bottom which makes the yields respectable. Paying £300k for a rental won't reap the rewards required to justify the risk or hassle. Commercial property isn't a bad shout but it's all about the covenant in much the same way as private. You take all the risk and the treasury takes a big chunk of the rewards. Great ay!

I've just been offered a share in a rather nice speed boat. It won't appreciate in value, the wife hates boats and the kids are both too young....but it'll help me forget about all this aggro! :E

[Cliff Secord]

This is such a BA thread. Speedboats :)

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

God, sorry, I’ll retract that. Really didn’t mean to sound so bloody pretentious when I wrote that. ��

[GS-Alpha]

An interesting letter sent out to 600 SFOs from the CFO today. At least they recognise this group is taking an enormous hit with these proposals. I suspect something is going to have to change. 600 seriously hacked off new Captains who will hold a grudge against their employer for the rest of their careers is surely not a great way to maximise profit.

I loved the condescending bit suggesting those 600 SFOs could already have commands if they wanted them, so they have brought it upon themselves. Oh really? So we have got 600 below NAPS juniority Captains have we? What a daft argument to make.

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

Yes....I had a cursory glance at that as it landed in my inbox. Interesting read. :rolleyes:

As I've said above and indeed elsewhere, I really hope we pull together over this, in whatever direction that may be.

[avtur007]

Pensions in most sectors, not just aviation are taking a beating and I think anyone with an ok pension in the future will be taxed so massively by our governments (to provide for those with no pension) that im not sure a typical pension fund is the best use of ones money anymore. The only folks that will escape this will be the 1% that have 99% of the money, and of course the self serving politicians making up the rules.
I have a simple quick calculation that I have used for years to give a rough Idea of how much funds you need in a pension pot (any pension pot as they all follow the same pattern, but some you have to pay into and some your employer does) to give you an annual pension figure. So for example if you have a pot of 100,000, take off a zero and divide by 2 then knock 15% off, this gives you a reasonable idea for the majority of savers. So 100k will give you approx 4.25k per year before tax as a pension,and thats generous on the calculations! I dont bother with inflation as most funds account for this but the buying power will be more or less the same today as in 20 years, just the numbers will be higher. If for example, you want to take a pension today and need say 20k as a yearly pension, then you will need around about 460k in a pot to get that! Most people, even well paid pilots will never save that amount so theres definitely going to be higher tax and lower returns in future. Dont put all your eggs in one basket and good hard cash saved will help.
Also a posters earlier mentioned about property and putting 300k into one. Theres two ways of doing property, the first is to buy looking for the value of the property to increase over time. This is risky but can offer good returns in the long run and only if your in a fantastic area for investment. Ie London etc. The second is to buy in a area that is way cheaper and commands a better monthly yield over the cost of ownership. The value of these properties doesn't go up so much over time but the the monthly rental and yield is often better and provides a monthly income thats affordable between tenants. MTW

[stormin norman]

A slighty more accurate way would be to use the BALPA shortfall calculator
1.Put in what you have currently accrued
2.Put in what you would like as a pension
3.look at pension shortfall
4.Take out a large glass from drinks cabinet and fill with Scotch.

[Lordflasheart]

An interesting letter sent out to 600 SFOs from the CFO today.It took him EIGHT pages to tell them "Your pension's :mad:"?

[stormin norman]

The art of Senior management communications !

[avtur007]

Stormin norman - probably better off keeping that scotch instead of drinking it, although having a large one does sound good! A decent bottle unopened left in the attic for a few years will gain value as the supply of that drop drys up. Theres a Massive demand for quality scotch and is getting bigger all the time. Hard not to drink a good bottle though and need a few in the attic to really make money, but just knowing you have a rare bottle of 50 year old to drink when your pension fails you is comforting.

[Sporran]

Captains have just received a NINE page letter!

[bex88]

Did not say much really. I am on BARP and the new deal is marginally better. The biggest worry is Philip Hammond and his muted pensions raid to buy youth votes.

[macdo]

Most people, even well paid pilots will never save that amount so theres definitely going to be higher tax and lower returns in future. MTW

Not quite sure how you come to this conclusion on savings. I have managed to save a lot more than your example in my company DC scheme in 20 years and my pot is considerably smaller than many of my colleagues. The airline I work for is quite generous, but I have also worked on saving 20% of my income and living accordingly on the rest. 20% was appropriate for someone starting a pension at 40. (half of your age as a percentage is a good rule of thumb)
The second part of the sentence is more important. Even if you just tracked indices over the last 10 years the returns would have been good, going forward looks more uncertain and the possibility of malicious government taxation is worrying. The big trick is keeping the pot intact until retirement!

[wiggy]

Captains have just received a NINE page letter!

Yep, though they could have saved themselves the bother and about eight and a half (albeit) virtual pages, by putting the logo, header, signature block on a sheet of A5 and inserted "your pension's :mad: .." in the middle..

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

We can’t do much about government raids, but we don’t have to vote for this. Unless the new DC scheme is significantly improved from the initial offering I know what I’ll be voting when the time comes.

[Gordomac]

Cripes. Interesting read. As co-jo in the yellow peril T1e , my Captain's pre-take off quiz included "How much do you need to have invested in your BA pension (we were just about to be absorbed into BARD) in order to enjoy 2/3rds of your current salary when you retire at 55 ?" Well, look, just secured my BA 100% endowment mortgage, wifey expecting number two and consequently traded in my beloved yellow (NE colours, of course) Spitfire Mark 4 for a Citroen Ami 8, my mind could not have been less focused on pensions. The answer was something like a million !(1975). Left BARD & joined the Laker Airways Pension Scheme (oooops).

Seemed to have done ok though. Oh and 2&2, "speedboats" ? I am just about to fold away me Lidle's inflateable for the winter. Good for another season though and lovely neighbours are going to help me cover the pool for the winter.

Just love being a penshi and dear Phillip looks set to raise my State Pension by 5% next year. Stop worrying lads & lasses. It'll all be ok.

[GrahamO]

The Monarch owners, quite simply, didn't wish to meet their obligations to the Monarch Final Salary scheme.

There isnt a company on the planet that can afford to replace the shortfall on pensions schemes. The simple fact is that defined benefit schemes were from a bygone age and have not changed the reflect the longer lives of people and the lower returns available in the market.

I completely understand those who express themselves as 'I was promised' because it will feel particularly hard, but what you were promised was upon a particular set of circumstances which have changed radically and you've not been paying enough to match the new reality.

You certainly do have every right to complain that you werent advised early enough of the changed circumstances, but if there isnt enough money, there isnt enough money and no government is going to bail you out completely. Even if you were told early enough, there simply isnt enough money in defined benefit pension schemes to fund all the promises and an employer going to the wall to try and fund some of the shortfall isnt going to happen either. Most people simply couldnt afford the payments to get the same level as a defined benefit scheme.

Personally I had a decent offer to buy out my final salary pension scheme
at 55 years old which was particularly good so I took it but there's no way i would buy an annuity as those are even worse.

[TURIN]

There isnt a company on the planet that can afford to replace the shortfall on pensions schemes. The simple fact is that defined benefit schemes were from a bygone age and have not changed the reflect the longer lives of people and the lower returns available in the market.

I have to disagree. Some companies are managing to fund their DB pensions. According to the figures we have been shown by BA approx 22% of companies are not in arrears. Makes you wonder why.
Tesco have done very well wiping a large chunk off the defecit just by adjusting life expectancy down to something more realistic and making assumptions that their returns on investments will be considerably better than current Gilt rates.

[stormin norman]

By chopping the pension and making later life a bit harder, surely a net result will be reduced
Life expectancy ?

[GrahamO]

I have to disagree. Some companies are managing to fund their DB pensions. According to the figures we have been shown by BA approx 22% of companies are not in arrears. Makes you wonder why.
Tesco have done very well wiping a large chunk off the defecit just by adjusting life expectancy down to something more realistic and making assumptions that their returns on investments will be considerably better than current Gilt rates.

Some ...... means only a small number !

22% means 78% have not, so it would be fair to conclude that the effect hasnt hit the other 22%. They may well be newer schemes with few 'takers' and lots of 'payers' on very large payments. Its hard to tell but the key is that only 1 in 5 is okay - for now. Five years ago, the 22% number was probably 30% - and every year, reality bites and more pensions chemes slip into arrears simply because;

People live longer
Returns are lower
People dont pay enough

Unless these three factors alter, no pension scheme in the 22% will survive.

Adjusting life expectancy and changing assumptions changes nothing. You can make any pension fund solvent by assuming everyone dies aged 68 and you get 15% return every year. I would be very surprised if the majority of Tescio staff are on DB ! I imagine some older staff are but what is the ratio 9:1 in favou of DC ?

That doesnt mean there is enough money in the real world. I would have though people were wise to this kind of jiggery pokery nonsense by now !

[avtur007]

Well said grahamo, no matter what we do, someone will fudge the figures to give us less. Damned if we do Damned if we dont.

[CurtainTwitcher]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this very recent video from the Canadan parliament about recent defined benefit pension change legislation and the finance minister (Bill Morneau) just came up on my radar. I though gives some background to how corporations view and think about pension plans and trends. Apologies if I have interjected beyond my remit, just a few breadcrumbs I have found.

The ease of of companies switching out of UK DB plans was specifically noted at about 3:07.


1FO27Z7JN6o

Source document from the 2013 speech:
PPF National Summit on Pension Reform - Bill Morneau remarks (http://www.morneaushepell.com/ca-en/insights/ppf-national-summit-pension-reform-bill-morneau-remarks)
But we spend much more of our time helping defined benefit plan sponsors manage the risks of these plans for their organization’s financial health.

A significant number of our clients have parent companies or sister companies in the United States or the United Kingdom. Since the movement away from defined benefit plans has been earlier and quicker in these countries, those clients are challenged to either defend their continuing defined benefit plan, or find a way out at the earliest financially plausible opportunity.

Those Canadian organizations that are master of their own destiny are regularly asking whether this trend away from defined benefits is appropriate for their organization.

Human resource leaders recognize that a relatively small percentage of their people expect to spend 30 years in one place – meaning that defined benefit plans may not be as beneficial for employees in practice as they are in theory.

[Marvo]

If you act together, i.e. With other unions within the airline such as the cabin crew and engineers, you stand a better chance of having this overturned. Or at least getting a better deal! As a Balpa rep myself for another UK airline, I'm urging them not to act alone as you are stronger together.

[bex88]

Marvo. If the unions save NAPS they do so by ensuring there is no improvements made to BARP. BARP members are now the majority and it is acknowledged by all sides that the DC scheme could be better, is no longer flexible enough and frankly in need of improvement. The focus should be on securing the best pension deal for all rather than maintaining the DB scheme for some at the expense of the DC scheme. The general view I see is less and less support for the pilots union from new, young or junior pilots.

[wiggy]

Marco

If you act together, i.e. With other unions within the airline such as the cabin crew and engineers, you stand a better chance of having this overturned. ...........I'm urging them not to act alone as you are stronger together.

Don't disagree for one moment...but as bex has righly said there are err..."issues" within BA BALPA membership- only one of the pension schemes is under review, NAPS, and TBH some poorly judged comments in the initial Union comms didn't exactly help solidarity from the BARP contingent. Certainly that and the slightly differing post NAPS deals the company seems to be offering to the various employee groups has definitely provoked an air of "divide and conquer" if the posts on company yammer are to be believed.

Add in a bit of recent history plus cultural memory and it will make a coordinated campaign between BALPA, Unite and other unions somewhat tough to achieve.......I'm sure it could be done, but some hatchets would have to be buried and some with egos would have to be kept in a box somewhere.

[4468]

I loved the condescending bit suggesting those 600 SFOs could already have commands if they wanted them, so they have brought it upon themselves. Oh really? So we have got 600 below NAPS juniority Captains have we? What a daft argument to make.
The letter actually stated, there are around 600 First Officers in NAPS, all of whom have held the required seniority to have achieved command at LGW or LHR since 2015.

He’s not saying everyone could have achieved a command. He’s saying anyone could. (Rather than for example, moving from one longhaul RHS to be frozen in a different longhaul RHS.)

I guess you don’t like it, but SG’s statement is absolutely correct. It is an oddity of BA that some prefer the easy, well paid, life of a senior copilot over being a junior captain. How often have I heard the refrain, “you only have to be junior once”? It has been obvious for years that BA would close NAPS. The precise terms of that closure have always been much less than certain.

Having said all that, I don’t want to see anyone’s pension trashed. However, I suspect it would be far easier to galvanise the membership had people been caught out through absolutely no choice of their own. Is that a fair comment?

[GrahamO]

If you act together, i.e. With other unions within the airline such as the cabin crew and engineers, you stand a better chance of having this overturned.

Acting together will not make money magically appear in the pension fund through.

Flogging a dead horse there IMO

[wiggy]

Dead horse or not I certainly think it is worth "flogging" some of the assumptions BA have made in their attempts to paint a picture of NAPs heading for Armagedon.

BA for years have had an SOP of always, always pleading poverty when the employees want or need anything, but I'm darned sure there's at least some more money to be had, maybe not for a complete restoration of NAPS, but there's certainly room for improvement on BAs proposals, without any need for any magic.

[bex88]

I think that's it Wiggy. NAPS is going to close the question is on what terms for the NAPS members. The union need to try to minimise the transitional pain if you will and I don't think any BARP memeber would argue to much about that as generally they will have less time to make adjustment to their contributions. What I hope we see is a focus on an improvement on the new BARP offer over a protection of NAPS members at the detriment of BARP members. At some point it's best for everyone and the union going forward if they can show they are at least making an effort to look after a wider demographic. As I said it's easier being 30 years away from retirement to make changes but it's amazing how even the extra 2% and flexibility makes a big difference that far out.

[GS-Alpha]

However, I suspect it would be far easier to galvanise the membership had people been caught out through absolutely no choice of their own.
That is simply a convenient excuse to use, to ease the consciences of the majority who are happy to see financial gains at the devastating expense of their colleagues. Half of the BACC did not go for short haul commands, choosing instead to hold out for their long haul commands. If you had had to wait as long for the seniority for a short haul command as the group of SFOs in question, you'd be holding out for a long haul command too (unless you just don't like long haul). There have always been those who wanted the first possible command, and those who prefer long haul and so want to wait for a long haul command. You honestly hand on heart wish short haul commands were always taken at the first possible seniority? You'd still be an FO. You'd happily forego that 33% pay rise for me? I'm touched.

It was your own choice to join BA on a BARP pension and yet you feel NAPS pensions should be sacrificed to improve BARP pensions... So it goes around and around. Unless we start protecting something, we will eventually be left with nothing. BA simply target a small enough group at every stage. They have got their tactics well worked out, because they know BALPA cannot galvanise the pilots who will never stick together, and so the minority being targeted is just trashed every time. The majority are looked after at each individual attack, at the expense of the minority group of the moment. It's short-termism at its worst. In the long run, everyone loses.

Sadly this particular attack on the minority is truly devastating. They most certainly did not choose it, and I think it's fair to say they expected a little more support. I didn't expect to keep my currently projected pension - I was never that naive, but I didn't expect anyone to be happy to raid the pensions of 600 pilots to be divided out to all the rest. That is simply not on.

[Wireless]

I think Bex has made a good point re voting power of BARP membership. I'll just add one concern I have. I'm a BARP member. The thing that concerns me is voting away colleagues old terms to increase the lower terms. Nothing to do with an emotional response, more what I've seen happening before.

I've witnessed this at other companies. One in particular, was like viewing what is happening at BA but wound on a few years. I'm sure the technique is the oldest trick in the industrial handbook. It's the two tier step down approach. Even though this is pensions and not pay scale being discussed, using "A scale" and "B scale" is easier.

For example - Create a poor by comparison B scale, recruit people onto that and in a few years the voting power will be weighted towards the B scale. Then create a vote to improve the B, whilst abolishing the A. You can see what happens later on. Next it's the B scale that is the target.

In the instance I recall, A scalers at a company were offered to keep their terms at the expense of creation of a lower B scale. I remember one union head did his upmost to warn voters that this is short sighted as a few years hence the disgruntled B scalers, tired of hearing the woes of the A scalers would vote down the terms of the oldies at the next collective bargaining milepost when offered a carrot.

Always ensure the workforce is completely out of concert then divide and concour using 2 steps each time. It's as old as the hills.

On the face of it, it could be argued I'm disagreeing with giving myself a pension improvement (which I'd say we need). However, I hesitate as I would be concerned that the next move a few years hence when the next step down occurs would be far from an improvement to my pension. Say all the young cadets were to be offered a new lower pension - then the process will be set up for a repeat.

Sometimes it pays to show solidarity and pause in the face of rushing temptation. Which comes back to Bex's point that the focus should be on improving the pension for all.

[4468]

Sometimes it pays to show solidarity
I couldn’t agree more.

‘We’ should have shown solidarity when the first BARP pilots were recruited. Sadly we did not. ‘We’ should have shown solidarity when 34pps were proposed. Sadly we did not. ‘We’ should have shown solidarity when shorthaul was trashed. Sadly we did not. Etc.

Well played BA.

[Enzo999]

I think it's fair to say the solidarity ship set sail a long time ago.

[hunterboy]

4468, How would BALPA convinced BA to reopen a closed scheme to newly recruited pilots when it had been closed for a time? I'm guessing the new recruits to other parts of the airline would also want to join NAPS too?
BA were never going to reopen the scheme. That would have meant striking at the time of closure. This would have meant we would be striking for people that hadn't even joined the company yet.

[Ron Swanson]

I think thats the point. If you don't look out for the pilots yet to join then you can't then expect them to look out for you after they join.

[wiggy]

... This would have meant we would be striking for people that hadn't even joined the company yet.

Which if I recall things correctly was one of the issues that plagued matters during the run up to the Open Skies dispute......

[GS-Alpha]

Ron

When the company announced closure of NAPS to all new entrants, the pilots were up in arms! People wanted to strike, but BALPA told us it would be illegal to strike when the company had not even recruited a single pilot on the lesser terms and conditions. There were no pilots recruited for many years. Meanwhile lots of other employees were recruited into BARP. Eventually the first BARP pilot was recruited. I cannot remember for sure whether a ballot was actually issued, but I think one was, and BALPA recommended we just accept it. Ballots always go the way BALPA recommends because too many people cannot be bothered looking at the facts and thinking about them. They consider their BALPA subscriptions to be a means to offload that hassle, and as a result, BALPA have way too much power. The reps always say we the pilots are BALPA, but it is not true because the majority always vote the way they are recommended to vote. There is no point in ever actually having the vote really. So BALPA blame the pilots because they are BALPA, and at the same time, BALPA pretty much always recommends accepting the deal however bad it is.

Open skies had everyone marching down the Bath road and building up strike funds because that is what BALPA recommended. It turned out that was the wrong fight and BALPA are just too scared to stand up to anything now. I do not blame them for being afraid because BA/IAG are a formidable opponent. However, that fear has rendered them useless. The pilots pay their fees and live under the illusion that they will be protected if they cock up, and that their terms and conditions will be protected as much as possible. As I say - it is all just an illusion.

[bex88]

There is so much mistrust in BALPA now that a lot are not even members and a significant number who are members recently voted against the latest JSS bid because BALPA recommended to vote in favour. What is the membership demographic I wonder. If BALPA is to recover going forward it needs to win back trust of pilots it has lost. That starts with the correct representation and we need reps who are LH/SH, senior, junior, captains and FO's. I don't see a board that is reflective of the pilot workforce.

[Sporran]

I really believe that the only reason for distrust in the BACC is that far too many colleagues have hugely over-optimistic expectations!

The guys on the BACC are pretty smart and have access to information that members do not possess. Before the doom-sayers start up - this information is often based on info released under confidentiality agreements.

BA pilots are taught to use the T-DODAR model for solving problems. The first D is diagnosis and that is where a lot of the mistrust occurs because the members do not have access to all the info that the guys on the BACC have access.

4468 (in post 107) makes a very good point that any of the 600 P2 guys in NAPS COULD have had a command, but CHOSE to stay L/H RHS. There are all sorts of arguments that have been voiced one way or another, but it was always a CHOICE!

[wiggy]

. That starts with the correct representation and we need reps who are LH/SH, senior, junior, captains and FO's. I don't see a board that is reflective of the pilot workforce

True, but that is not BALPA or Company Council's fault...take a look at just about any election at any level at BALPA and the manifestos are stuffed with the same names ( and good grief there are a few names who have been secure ;) in post for years yet producing stuff all noticeable output).. Followed by these exciting manifestos we then have unsurprisingly low turn out at elections ( what was it recently, just over 20% for the last NEC ballot) as a result there's been stuff all "churn" at CC level for a long time.....and that is where I think the real problem lies.

BALPA at BA has slowly morphed back into much the same beast as it was 20-25 years ago......IMHO the junior cadre need to get some of their number onto the BACC, and that means being elected.....which means standing for election....etc...oh..and when it comes to elections you don't have use all your votes .....you don't have to pick "5 of the above".....just the one or two you want....here endeth the lesson....

[GrahamO]

BA for years have had an SOP of always, always pleading poverty when the employees want or need anything, but I'm darned sure there's at least some more money to be had, maybe not for a complete restoration of NAPS, but there's certainly room for improvement on BAs proposals, without any need for any magic.

That would be sensible if BA had been a successful, profitable airline forthe last decade, without the demands for change. The sad fact is that BA only cane out of the red after making the necessary changes.

In many ways BA is a bit like Alitalia - its employees wanting more (which anyone is entitled to ask for) but working in a business that simply cannot afford it.

One day, BA will go bankrupt like so many British companies, simply because its staff refuse to accept the reality that the world changes every single day and for many roles, it frankly doesnt take much education or skill to do the job and so people are easily replaceable.

[Mr Oleo Strut]

Stormin norman - probably better off keeping that scotch instead of drinking it, although having a large one does sound good! A decent bottle unopened left in the attic for a few years will gain value as the supply of that drop drys up. Theres a Massive demand for quality scotch and is getting bigger all the time. Hard not to drink a good bottle though and need a few in the attic to really make money, but just knowing you have a rare bottle of 50 year old to drink when your pension fails you is comforting.

Take care, Scotch does not improve in the bottle, only in the cask, So it's value doesn't go up except in terms of its rarity. Best to drink it now and drown your sorrows. Same with Champagne.

[TURIN]

That would be sensible if BA had been a successful, profitable airline forthe last decade, without the demands for change. The sad fact is that BA only cane out of the red after making the necessary changes.

In many ways BA is a bit like Alitalia - its employees wanting more (which anyone is entitled to ask for) but working in a business that simply cannot afford it.

One day, BA will go bankrupt like so many British companies, simply because its staff refuse to accept the reality that the world changes every single day and for many roles, it frankly doesnt take much education or skill to do the job and so people are easily replaceable.

According to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways#Business_trends

Last ten years profits are pretty damn good.

[bex88]

GrahamO.......really? Years of command experience is easily replaceable? The facts are that BA for pilots on the 34pps is little different and and some cases considerably less than our low cost competitors at early stages of your career and just about comparable overall. Friends of mine in the LCC earn more for the same roll than I currently do.

[Bob8052]

Take care, Scotch does not improve in the bottle, only in the cask, So it's value doesn't go up except in terms of its rarity. Best to drink it now and drown your sorrows. Same with Champagne.

And port apparently, never knew that.

[GrahamO]

According to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways#Business_trends

Last ten years profits are pretty damn good.

You have a very poor assessment of what good profit is - single digits with massive capital investment requirements so hardly somewhere to invest in, and you completely missed the point I made that such numbers are AFTER the changes which you object to. Look at the numbers in red and those are the world you want to live in, albeit for a short time before the P45.

[GrahamO]

GrahamO.......really? Years of command experience is easily replaceable?

How many tens of thousands of pilots are there ? Yes, pilots have some platform unique training, but there are still a lot of pilots around and there are plenty of people who want to do the job.

How many hundreds of thousands of cabin crew are there ? How easy is it to train and replace one ? Does it take a degree and four years education before they start crew training - No. Could you take someone out of a cafe and train them in a few weeks - yes. Sorry folks but cabin crew are a commodity these days.

Yes, easily replaceable - I understand why people here don't like that as it suggest they are not as special as they think they are.

[CurtainTwitcher]

How many tens of thousands of pilots are there ? Yes, pilots have some platform unique training, but there are still a lot of pilots around and there are plenty of people who want to do the job.

Adam Smith had a few things to say about that in 1776 in the Wealth Of Nations (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN4.html). Substitute any occupation that requires a great deal of expense or career risk for that of the law student in Smith's example.

10.1.25 The probability that any particular person shall ever be qualified for
the employment to which he is educated, is very different in different occupations.
In the greater part of mechanic trades, success is almost certain; but very
uncertain in the liberal professions. Put your son apprentice to a shoemaker,
there is little doubt of his learning to make a pair of shoes: But send him
to study the law, it is at least twenty to one if ever he makes such proficiency
as will enable him to live by the business. In a perfectly fair lottery, those
who draw the prizes ought to gain all that is lost by those who draw the blanks.
In a profession where twenty fail for one that succeeds, that one ought to
gain all that should have been gained by the unsuccessful twenty. The
counsellor at law who, perhaps, at near forty years of age, begins to
make something by his profession, ought to receive the retribution, not only
of his own so tedious and expensive education, but of that of more than
twenty others who are never likely to make any thing by it.
How extravagant soever the fees of counsellors at law may sometimes
appear, their real retribution is never equal to this.

ICAO gives essential the same argument as Smith.

POTENTIAL SAFETY RISKS CAUSED BY PILOT SHORTAGE (https://www.icao.int/Meetings/HLSC2015/Documents/IP/ip034_en.pdf), SECOND HIGH-LEVEL SAFETY CONFERENCE 2015 (HLSC 2015) PLANNING FOR GLOBAL AVIATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
1.3 High cost of pilot license, entry-level low wages and reduced career interest. For many students the cost of obtaining the license is a challenge and the low wages for job entry-level pilots (e.g., approximately $22 400 in the United States) is a deterrent when faced with the perspective of having to repay the substantial debt incurred to obtain the license, which may be well in excess of $100 000. Furthermore, other industries (e.g., IT, medicine, banking, etc.) are more appealing to younger generations than aviation.

Can you offer a cogent rebuttal to Smith and ICAO?

[hunterboy]

No....sadly flying has become a vocation. There are many threads on who to blame.

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

Morning all,

I’ll just leave this here...

BA owner IAG predicts travel demand to fuel profit rise | Article [AMP] | Reuters (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1CW0KK)

IAG operating profit up by over 20% in a single year and full year profits expected to be €3bn. All wonderful news of course but I hope BALPA and the other unions make the best of this info.

[stormin norman]

Interesting to see which of the IAG group made the most profit ?

[sprite1]

It'll be Aer Lingus, on a 'pound-for-pound' basis. Obviously BA will make the most in an absolute sense but Aer Lingus are very lean and have an enviable profit margin going on at the minute.

[Rated De]

A quick look at the BA balance sheet is interesting.

Privatisation was a great way to offload a public liability to the private sector, with enough inducements the :mad: floated. Ahh Maggie a gift to Empire!

With that done and dupes holding shares, it was a matter a demographics; BA has always looked to the finance community like a pension fund with an airline attached. Suspending belief in the reality that what can't be paid won't meant brokers traded the stock up and down.

IAG offers Willie (second cousin of Alan Joyce) cost base leverage. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but sadly privatising profits and socialising losses is second nature to the corporate these days

[stormin norman]

A quick look at the BALPA website tells me the union has already rolled over before the consultation period has finished - no change there then.

[sidtheesexist]

BALPA? BA mgmt by proxy

[TURIN]

You have a very poor assessment of what good profit is - single digits with massive capital investment requirements so hardly somewhere to invest in, and you completely missed the point I made that such numbers are AFTER the changes which you object to. Look at the numbers in red and those are the world you want to live in, albeit for a short time before the P45.

The numbers in red have got bugger all to do with the pension scheme. There were several other reasons BA declared losses there.

Profit is profit. The accountants will do their thing and declared profits will reflect exactly the numbers required (assuming the revenue is there). I filled in a tax form this year which included a disposal of a taxable asset. It is amazing how little tax you need to pay when you read the 'rules'. Lewis Hamilton and the cast of Mrs Browns Boys have nothing on corporate tax avoidance!

A projected 3 Billion profit this year is obscene when cutting the pay of the employees who created that profit.
Oh, and I'm sure the leadership of BA /IAG will be handsomely rewarded for such record profits, along side the pension fund managers.
And people wonder why there is a resurgence in support for Corbyn's socialism.

[macdo]

I think, sir, you have a good point.

[World Flyer]

Can I ask. How is this influencing current pilots plans? Firstly, will people be postponing retirement a few more years? Are people less able to do part-time now?
Or do you see people leaving to the likes of China to fill the shortfall, as mentioned in a previous comment?

[VAMY]

Turin - I can remember back in the late nineties I did a layover in Jo'burg, BA used the same hotel then, in Rosebank, I think. In the hotel at the same time as us was the first Hamble cadet to reach retirement age, (possibly 55?), if what we were told was true and not a wind up this Captain was retiring with 100K lump sum and an annual pension of around 80K. Does this mean that you are now going to have to make do with an annual pension of only 65K? ;)

Yes, those numbers would be credible for an APS contributor and even more so if they took the " crystalization" option at 50 yrs, which many did. I joined NAPS in NOV 1987, one of the first to do so.

Many of my colleagues a few years senior were in APS and their full career pensions were certainly 80k-110k range plus lump sum.

[macdo]

Can I ask. How is this influencing current pilots plans? Firstly, will people be postponing retirement a few more years? Are people less able to do part-time now?
Or do you see people leaving to the likes of China to fill the shortfall, as mentioned in a previous comment?

I think that the vast majority of pilots will simply be poorer in retirement than their forebears. The DB genie cannot be put back into the bottle, so we will all work longer (55 to 60 to 65 already happened, 67 to 70 in the pipeline), have our benefits capped (max contribution to pension reduced year on year since the start of the millenia), low returns on investments and low interest rates probably set for years to come. I'm not convinced that even selling your soul to the Chinese will net you an APS style pension at the age it was available.
Watch the Budget this week to see what the next slap in the face will be for the fiscally prudent, then be very glad you aren't a 25 year old FO.

[Rated De]

Pensions are a relatively new phenomena. It is only 100 years or so that most western countries had them. Life expectancy ensured that any obligation on the state or society was short lived...

Roll forward to today.
A whole industry has grown up with the glory years of retirement. financial planners, travel and tour companies even the funds that hold these accounts.

BA was no different, the government pension liability successfully shifted to Private sector dupes in 1986 when privatised.

With life expectancy well into late 70's and 80's in most western countries, 40 years of work was supposed to cover 40 years of retirement (give or take)


When these idiot central banks suppressed real interest rates, they blew out of the water every asset accumulation model that pension funds and insurance companies rely upon. Instead of rewarding the prudent, they rewarded the debt holders to fund the ongoing debt :mad: show. Insurance companies and pension funds need 6.5% to 7% to cover expected payouts. Financial planners sold the same crap to baby boomers building their retirement models, taking the fees up front for their crap 'service'

Defined benefit pensions are no different.
With the baby boomers exiting all industries at an increasing rate, ultimately we will reach the point where what can't be paid won't be paid...:mad:

[macdo]

Probably correct Rated De. Which is why those with some sense may be looking to take their DB money out while bond values remain low and those younger pilots being moved out of the BA DB scheme may, a long time in the future, thank their lucky stars.
At least with a DC scheme you know what you have. (at the time of valuation, anyway)

[bex88]

The DC has some positives and is just a savings policy over the long run. Like all investments there are risks to the capital but a diverse portfolio and balancing should mean a positive result in the medium to long term. Equities have out performed historical performance by a big margin over the last 5-8 years. Between 1900 to the crash of 2008 the mean return on equities is approximately inflation plus 4%. The responsibility to financially plan lies with us. Paying the minimum is not an option and in reality we should be looking to pay in a combined contribution of between 25-30% of our salary. Yes it's a lot but if I say 14% from us and 16% from the company it's not so bad. Even with a low return and taking the full lump sum it should deliver a reasonable pension with a retirement at 60 having paid in for 30 years. I look at it like this. The better half is good at spending but less so at saving. She often says that it never seems like I really earn more as my salary improves but what she does not realise is that each time it does i up my contributions. Best case I good pension, worst case I don't get to enjoy my pension but know that the DC pot built up will look after my family. My parent have a great pension but their retirement is not how they envisaged it. Career professionals in medicine and their regret now is working to hard for too long which robbed them of the retirement they can fund but are unable to live. Not sure they would take it so well if a jacked in BA to fly float planes in the Maldives but you get the jist.

[TURIN]

Well I have been paying in between 15% and 20% of my salary since I was 18.
And yet I am now going to lose about 30% of my annual pension. Should I have been paying more? Less? Go and enjoy the moment instead of saving for the future?
Gutted! Absolutely gutted!

[Rated De]

Like all investments there are risks to the capital but a diverse portfolio and balancing should mean a positive result in the medium to long term. Equities have out performed historical performance by a big margin over the last 5-8 years. Between 1900 to the crash of 2008 the mean return on equities is approximately inflation plus 4%. The suppression of real interest rates to never before seen lows and nearly USD $10 trillion yielding negative, central banks have taken everyone into uncharted waters. Portfolio theory of which you talk cannot balance a portfolio as risk is not priced. Just how can a bond yield negative? Switzerland's 10-year note was yields negative as does Japan. In effect you give them money to borrow yours. Bizarro world.

Fundamentally using historical data upon which to model returns into the future with the distortions present is not for the weak of stomach. Sometimes return of capital more important than return on capital. Counter party risk in my mind is to be avoided.
Do realise is no consolation, but the whole western world is in the same boat.

Bill Gross has been warning of the unintended consequences of low interest rates for years:

Fund managers that have been counting on returns of 7 percent to 8 percent may need to adjust that to around 4 percent, Gross, who runs the $1.5 billion Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund, said during an Aug. 5 interview on Bloomberg TV. Public pensions, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest in the U.S., are reporting gains of less than 1 percent for the fiscal year ended June 30.

With baby boomers heading for the exits, there are serious shortfalls in funding all across the globe. Funding short falls of all sorts of retirement models is to become something we all will be familiar with into the future.

On the good news front, rest assured the elected 'representatives' will be made whole and continue to tell you all is well, until it isn't.

[TURIN]

Looking at the latest Pension Statement, the average return over the last ten years is over 7%. Last year it was 21% for some of the AVC funds!

It doesn't seem to be the investment returns that are the problem. It is the basis for calculation of liabilities within the scheme that are causing the problem.
Assuming an average life expectancy of 91 is the biggest lie going.

[pax britanica]

trouble is that in the UK we are so meek that managements and governments think they can get away with anything. I know things are changing a bit on the other side of the Channel where the 'Aux armes citoyans' attitude does remind politicians and big business that they could end up under the guillotine albeit in more modern form. I think the way people today are treated about pensions is disgraceful.

Another example of how we are slitting into a society of lots of poor people and a few rich ones with nothing in the middle.

[slast]

BA was no different, the government pension liability successfully shifted to Private sector dupes in 1986 when privatised.
No disagreement with your sentiments, but just for completeness and writing as one of those who recognises his great good fortune in having been signed into The Airways Corporations Joint Pension Scheme (full title of APS) Part VI, without having to even think about it.....

As I was told about it, the original BA APS scheme was set up as an ideal model scheme by the postwar Labour government for what was effectively a new nationalised industry (BEA/BOAC/BSAA). It was to be properly funded from relatively high contributions from both employees and employer, but not like Civil Service etc which are paid directly by the taxpayer. This had the big advantage that for many years there was a lot going in but with few pensioners so very little going out, which was what built the pot up. Pilot retirement age thinking was based on the military experience and was set at mandatory 55 but an optional 50.

The creation of NAPS did not transfer government liability as such, but really recognised that the generous levels in that ideal APS scheme created for a new postwar nationalised industry in the late 1940s couldn't in fact be sustained with ownership by private shareholders, especially after seeing what effect inflation could have in the early 70s. As a scheme that's been closed for decades, I think APS is in fact is in a healthy position thanks to the efforts of the members elected trustees in BAPS etc. But that doesn't do anything to address the situation of todays' generation who have been seriously screwed over by successive rounds of government and management decisions.

[Rated De]

Thanks slast.
Stand corrected on the liability, I have researched it trying to ascertain the structure of the liability, but missed a bit of data.

[slast]

Can't give you chapter and verse I'm afraid but that has been my understanding anyway.

I can fully understand why so many people feel cheated. I worry about the situation of my own children who are now in their 40s with very little short term job security or loyalty from employers, and little long term financial security.

One other side comment: to some extent these things reflect trade-offs. Prior to BA privatisation, I attended a number of IFALPA conferences where we were obviously mixing with senior pilots from other countries, and discussed pay and conditions. Because of being government owned and subject to prices and pay policies set by politicians, the Brits were pretty much the poor relations in terms of salaries especially compared to the equivalent US pilots, not to mention Air France, Lufthansa and some others.

Since we weren't allowed to have high salaries "the system" somehow found compensations, such as better working conditions and a much better pension scheme, though I didn't appreciate it at the time. I do know that my standard of living today is higher than some of my US friends who had much more money back in those days. But I do realise that was just our good fortune, not anything we can take credit for.

[Rated De]

Being born into a generation who had parents witness the two world wars and a depression with the social dislocation and destruction does help. People collectively were weary, they wanted an inclusive society, neighbourly a bit honourable and dare I say it, courteous. Cycles repeat.

To my mind we are approaching a correction of a magnitude that may dwarf the Great depression and sadly these cycles tend to repeat every four generations: People always repeat the same errors!

The feedback loop of consistent downward pressure on terms on conditions has an economic impact: globalisation left behind the worker.

Business now scratches its head as they have less demand for their product. Missing in their navel gazing is something Henry Ford summarised over 100 years ago (am paraphrasing)

'Unless I pay my workers enough to buy my cars, eventually I have no company.'

Effectively my income is someone else's spending, my spending someone else's income. Unless there is a new planet with opportunities for new markets, we ought realise the circularity of a society that generates an economy.Modern MBA and business management reduced everything to a unit of consumption or unit of cost. Economies and societies are not the same thing.

[stormin norman]

So BAPLA have rolled over without so much as a whimper.

[GS-Alpha]

That is because they have been bought off with a nice little tax avoidance scheme for those up against the LTA and or with annual pension allowance tapering. This scheme is a big improvement for many and a huge loss for the rest.

[Northern Monkey]

For what it's worth as a BARP co-pilot I don't have any major problem with this new offer. +3% on my pension contributions from the company (bear in mind we weren't expecting to get anything at all a year ago). But then again I'm a realist and I wasn't expecting much to be honest.

[I'm Off!]

So BAPLA have rolled over without so much as a whimper.

Is that really what you think? Before we hear whether this is recommended or not? Before we have a ballot? Talk about pre-judging... Unless you were in the room or the meetings, you probably have no idea what BALPA have or have not done.