GS-Alpha

Rimmer, there is no need for an apology. I am simply correcting you in the hope that you will understand that pilots really are getting shafted by this deal just as much as the rest of the workgroups. The initial BA proposal had me losing about 60% of my pension. Now I stand to lose something like 20 to 30%. I am not particularly happy about this, but I understand that we would be shooting ourselves in the foot to make BA pay more. I honestly think they are being made to pay all that they can afford right now.
However, I also believe that by the time they have finished their war on other terms and conditions, they would have been able to pay the deficit no problem, and now will not be made to.
GS-Alpha
PS I know that BALPA decided not to chase a review mechanism because they thought that knowing BA, it would not work in the employees' favour. But this does not mean that we cannot go back and ask for more should that situation arise.
I know nothing of whether there will be an RPI cap on APS. In the short term (next 5 years or so), I do not expect that we will get a payrise above RPI anyway. But two decades away, who on Earth knows?

Joetom

keep up your good posts Rimmer.
.
Why has this talking point been moved now???
.
Why has this 19% pensionable pay rise for flying crew not been hi-lighted by the company so as all staff can see the game being played, think an old saying rings my bell, we are all equal, just some are more equal than others???
.
Why if flying staff get 19% for shifting 10yrs, ground staff not getting 9.5% for shifting 5yrs???
.
One thing I'm sure, when all the back door deals have been done, many staff will be very very unhappy for their remaining time inside the company!!!

Carnage Matey!

Why do ground staff not get 9.5%? Because the flying staff originally got a bigger kick in the nuts than everyone else because their NRA had to shift by 10 years and not 5. Even BA recognised this and implemented a 5 year transition period. This meant BA's annual payment dropped from £280M to £265M after those 5 years. As the whole pension deal is about affordability to BA, BALPA maintained that if BA could afford to pay £280M we'd rather have our share of that money directed in manner we can use more efficiently. £9M is the share attributable to pilots and BALPA have used it to pay for the increase in pensionable pay. Ground staff aren't getting 9.5% because they didn't need anything to cushion a 10 year shift of NRA. Of course if you wanted to shift your NRA to 70 then perhaps you could have a cushion too.

Joetom

CM,
.
Thanks for info, I now understand 5years on staff NRA counts for nothink, but 5 more years count for a 19% pensionable pay rise.
.
Reminds me of two muggers in a court last week, the first mugger, mugged 5 people and the second mugger, mugged 10, the judge was very reasonable and fair, the first mugger had no case to answer and was let off, the second mugger got 19 months in jail???
.
If NAPs 1 and 2 are being closed/shut down from what I understand, I would hope a fair employer would offer the same pension deal or options to all staff!!
.
This union/company pension saga is like watching one of those nature shows on the TV, the big strong lions gobble down as much meat as they can, only then can the dogs pick the bones, so on the plus side, ground staff don't need to buy any tooth-picks!!!

Flying Fred

Joetom, the deal is the same for all staff with the only exception being the transitional arrangements for flying staff (cabin crew and pilots) which were always on the table.

If you recall, in BA's original offer, there was a transition of 5 years to cushion the blow of moving from a retirement age of 55 to 65 in one hit when all other staff were only moving 5 years from 60 to 65. All that has happened is the unions have agreed for this money to be used in a different manner i.e. to increase the pensionable pay scales for new NAPS for pilots and the cabin crew have yet to decide what to do with theirs.
The money was always there and has not changed. The only thing the unions did was to spot that this reduced after 5 years and persuaded BA that, if they can afford in now, they can afford it in 5 years time.
You are right that for new NAPs for pilots, under the terms of this deal, the pensionable pay scales rise but don't forget that this also increases the amount that is paid in by the individual as the contribution rates are 8.5% and 5.25% of pensionable pay for option 1 and 2 respectively. So they put more in but get more out.

Cabin crew have yet to decide what to do with their share of the transitional money (which I emphasise was alway on the table and only offered to flying staff in the first place) but they may elect to increase pensionable pay scales as well.

Joetom

FF,
.
You are 100% correct, but lets be honest, if 10yrs gets 19%, it might just be fair that 5yrs should get 9.5% increase in pensionable pay, Do you think the Judge in my previous post was fair.....a simple Yes or No ???

Carnage Matey!

So if you go at your original retirement age what will you get? Probably about 81% of your new expected pension. Thats where your 19% went. If I go at my original retirement age I'll get barely 60% of my new expected pension. Does that sound like a fair deal to you? Does that sound like the same options are available to all staff?

ZFT

Isn’t it a great shame that all the anger, bitterness, resentment and frustration aren’t directed at the original architect of this problem – Gordon (Robber) Brown.

His linked pension is assured no matter what whilst the rest of us are left scurrying around trying to pick up the scraps, irrespective of where we fit within the aviation fraternity.

Flying Fred

Joetom,
Not a question I can answer, as I don't know the previous form of the defendants and I didn't hear the evidence. Were these muggings violent and what did they steal? Were weapons used? As you can see, these things are very rarely simple and I think your analogy is not complex enough.

Let me offer you a different one. Let's say we both live in the same street, lets call it 'BA Way' . The council announces it has a huge budget shortfall and decides that it has to put council tax up. However, the council had made a previous promise to those on the left of the street that, if they paid higher council tax every year for 35 years, they would then not have to pay any more after that. Those on the right hand side of the street and had been promised a different thing - that they would pay regular council tax for 40 years before not having to pay any more.

After a while, the council realises that this is unsustainable and it has to put the tax up and also, because of changes to the law, realises that the different end dates are not legal any more. Now it decides it has to now get money from everyone for 45 years or you can pay a higher tax rate and only pay for 40 years.

The council know that this is going to go down like a lead balloon with everyone but particularly those on the left hand side as they are now paying for ten years longer than they were promised whereas those on the right hand side are only paying for five years longer.

Which side of the street do you think has got the fairer deal, left or right?

Note I have not included any transition arrangement for those on the left as you are advocating.

p.s. forgot to mention that in the above example, both sides of the street are still shafted.

Jet II

surely it exactly the same for both sides - the changes are not retrospective so whatever you have paid in the past is banked then everyone pays the same under the new regime.

Let me ask you a question - The final salary pension is a fantastic deal for staff who have a pay that more than doubles in the term of their employment but as only a small group of staff have that benefit is that fair to the rest?

Carnage Matey!

You seem to have overlooked the promise that the left side of the street could stop paying five years earlier. What price should be placed on that?


That is fairly irrelevant to the argument as the final salary scheme depends on the final salary. The small group of staff could only disadvantage the other group if they paid the same personal and company contributions and yet took out more from the fund than they put in. The reality is that the small group make higher personal and company contributions and only take out of the fund a proportional share to what they put in, as the trustees will confirm.

The issue of the doubling of pay is something of a red herring here. The job pays the market rate for senior pilots. If you don't want the pay to double over a career you can cut the final pay or raise the starting pay.

Many of the arguments against the pilots on here seem to revolve around the single false premise that the pilots take out more from the fund than they put in. The trustees have confirmed this is not the case. I would like to see some arguments against the deal that are not based on this particular false premise.

Rimmer

Carnage

We had a brief about NAPs from our NAPs and APS Trustees, during the brief it was asked the very question do the pilots get more out of NAPs than they contribute, the reply was >> on an individual basis contributions cover the individuals funding but because of the career structure of certain group ( when questioned it was explained as increments and near guaranteed promotion ) flight crew who start with BA as cadets or early do take more out of NAPs proportionally that their lifetimes contributions cover compared to other groups.

When asked if that is fair the trustees commented that it was a matter for BA how they reward different groups over their careers.

Joetom

Lets keep it simple.
.
NAPs 1 and 2 is about to be history.
.
Wattever comes next should be the same for all staff to be fair.
.
I would be happy if all MPS staff were offered the new pension deal and also allow all new joines to get included and just be treated like all staff.
.
If all and I mean all staff were on the same deal, we would all push together year on year to increase the T and Cs of this said new deal.
.
Staff working together in the future will have the best chance to hold or improve any new deal that is hatched, if we split and get bitter, this new deal will loose value quicker than a 4x4 gas guzzler.
.
The company would like all sections of staff on various different deals playing them all off against each other to help the watering down process gain speed over the coming years, lets be smarter that our back slapping managers at this time.
.
I am 100% behine the CC, good luck, many will join your path....

Carnage Matey!

That answer from the trustees is self-contradictory. If an individuals contributions cover an individuals funding then why do they need extra funding and who are they taking it from? If that is the case then I very much suspect that any extra funding is coming from the body of pilots who start later (on more money), put more in and take less out. The trustees maintain that as a whole, the pilot community takes out the same proportion as it puts in, give or take a couple of percentage points up or down each year. If some people in the pilot community are doing better out of it than others then thats an internal matter for the pilot community. Overall they are not stitching any other employee group up.

Joetom - I'd like all MPS and new staff on the new NAPS deal too, but given mind that the GMBs only strategy in these current negotiations was to use the pilots pensions to fund their members share of the deficit do you think I can trust them to push for collective improvements in T+Cs with the pilots? Not a chance!

Joetom

This Thread has been running for about one year I think with a good information on the NAPs, why has it moved location just as the heat is going up???
.
Appears to be getting much fewer posts, when will the CC Thread about same get moved???
.
Good Luck to all the staff, will be very interesting to see which sections get best and worst deals, looks like the pilots are a few lenghts ahead at this time, however it could get choppy and their boat is low in the water with its load.
.
I wish the pilots were as quick to pay a share of the meal bill as they are to seal their pension deal???

yachtno1

Yeah Joe I've experienced pilots at first hand been sailing with the BAYC never thought those with all the money would be so tight !

Joetom

Moving this post has done the trick, does anybody know why this post got moved at this time, its been running for about a year, then gets moved just as all the action is about to start????

M.Mouse

It got moved because it was no longer about the prospect of pilot's striking over pensions but changed tack to terms and conditions.

I have never ever paid less than my share of a meal bill, often stand the first round in the bar and often pay the wine bill in a restaurant, within reason.

Saying all Captains are tight is a bit like saying all cabin crew are poker faced, fat and idle.

Rainboe

Joetom, what an insulting incendiary thing to say, supported by another poster's daft comment!:
This Captain never had that problem as he would never eat 'en masse'! I got fed up with CC sneaking multitudinous Irish coffees in and sounding off about pilots over dinner- a peculiarly BA pastime! I was far happier taking my wife away and eating with her. You are quoting nonsense about pilot pay deals to support your vacuous arguments. Get used to it- you will never be paid pilot pay levels because your training is all of 3 weeks and to be replaced, all it takes is sending out to Tescos for more. Skill levels come into it too somewhere. Just take it easy and fight your own corner instead of trying to do down others.

Carnage Matey!

I believe Joetom likes to masquerade as an engineer sometimes, which does lead me to wonder how he knows so much about pilots bill paying habits. I mean he wouldn't just make something up of the top of his head, would he now?