Ex vicar

RIghtly different contracts and agreements apply to different groups of people. However, in this case, where we are talking about potentially turning down passenger revenue in favour of giving a 13 year old child of a Non Executive Director a free first class seat to go on a whim wherever they want. I find that outrageous, and I suspect so does the CEO Willie Walsh, and previous CEO's, Colin Marshall included. The latter certainly knew where the bread was buttered and who the most important people were - the fare paying passengers. Remember, we are not talking about subject to space availablility, over which we would have less issue, but over potentially denying a full fare pax. This decision, if it goes through, absolutely enshrines the pigs in the trough mentality that seems all pervasive in the 21st century. The same mentality that pays Non-execs upwards of £300K pa for 2 days work a month, the same mentailty that sets aside £75m in share options for 'senior management', the same mentality that rewards director with upwards of 50% bonuses on the back of monies saved, just like the politicians and their voting through inflation busting schemes. IT STINKS.

BBC report proposal rejected (by the board?)

I know that it is unusual for a Murdoch owned newspaper to get its facts wrong but this was the BA Corporate Statement issued in response to the piece:

Even the Directors should have to pay to cover the taxes and various other charges that the rest of the staff pay. Why should the shareholders foot the bill.:ugh:

If I was lucky enough (!) to be a Non Executive Director on an enormous salary for part-time work, I would not have the audacity to turn up for a flight and expect fare paying passengers to be down graded or left behind so that my entourage could have nice first class seats.

Surely this cannot be right ?:ugh:

That, my son, is why you'll never make it as a NED. You still have the capacity to feel shame.

I keep hearing this sentiment - but I must admit from my (lowly) position I think BASSA have got a bit of a result - a 19% increase in pensionable pay, 3 extra increments and a 4.6% payrise - I would go on strike for that sort of deal.

Hmmm, let's see.

1. Pensionable pay increase was available to BASSA from early Jan as a result of BALPA's analysis and negotiation resulting in cabin crew having an extra £6m to distribute. BASSA chose to do the same as BALPA had already done.

2. 4.6% payrise is RPI+0.2%. BUT only payable from Feb 2007, not Oct 2006 when the previous agreement lapsed. Like for like this should have been a 5.8% rise.

3. Extra increments, look at 2 above and you'll find out where the money came from.

Overall, BASSA got no new money over RPI through their ill-thought out actions. How they dress it up to their members is up to them, whichever way they chose the reality is that they have been well and truly sh*fted.

I hear what you say - but the fact remains that BASSA have achieved a better deal for their members than is on offer to the rest of the company employees (flight crew excepted of course)

So whilst you may think their actions ill-thought' there's a quite a few of us thinking 'well maybe if we did the same' ;)

Errrr.....what exactly?

The pension money was already there, your RPI + a tad was not backdated so the extra increments (which only go to those already at the previous CAPPED pay point) do nothing for the supposedly low earners joing since 1997.

Although it is interesting to see that this post was made and then hastily withdrawn from elsewhere on this website:

So then add in the large dollop of allowances and it makes a mockery of the claim I read somewhere about poorly paid CC.

Looks to me like the company left nothink to chance with BALPA and its members causing problems like Strikes and offered them a good deal, well done BALPA.
.
Looks to me like the company were trying their luck with BASSA and their members and took it to the wire, but in the end offered them a good deal, well done to BASSA.
.
The main difference in the above is BALPA and its members are happy with the way they were treated, but BASSA and its members are not happy with the way they were treated and continue to be treated, if the company fail to repair the damage they have caused, the future will have pre-loaded issues waiting to bite them all the time.
.
However, now the Flying Staff pay and pensions have been sorted out(18.75% pensionable pay rise and bigger pensions for all) the company can now sort out its ground staff pay and pensions, interesting times to see if the company treat all staff the same, I would guess if the ground staff were to be offered 18.75% pensionable pay rise the pension issues would be fixed, but I think ground staff will have to pick up the tab for the Pilots and Cabin Crew pension deals, time to see if the ground unions can raise their game to BALPA or BASSA standards, enjoy the show.......:sad:

Joetom, you have just displayed your complete lack of understanding of the issues, and your own prejudices, for the consideration of all those on here who actually understand the current situation. :sad: All our pensions have been reduced, geddit? :ugh:

Jet II - you say you hear what M.Mouse & TopBunk say - but you obviously don't understand it, also as displayed by your latest post. BASSA has 'achieved' the reduction of a purser, and sold it as a victory to its members.

Better to keep your mouth shut & be thought a fool, than to open it to confirm the fact.

But I do understand it - very well and I dont have to insult other posters at the same time - if you cannot be civil then I suggest you post somewhere else.

Yes BASSA did fail on the Purser deal - but that is what negotiation is all about, you win some and lose some. The fact remains that BASSA have won a deal for their members that many ground staff are now looking to their rep's to achieve for them.

Jet II

Wrong. BASSA have achieved nothing of the kind. All company employees have the same deal, 8.5% if you want to retire at age 60 and 5.25% if you want to go at age 65. For flying crew only, because we were originally contracted/promised a normal retirement age (NRA) of 55, BA offered a five year transitional arrangement. This was in the original offer made 1 year ago. All that has happened is the money that was destined for that scheme is now being used to fund the pensionable pay increase and the transitional arrangement has been dropped. There was no new money, just using the offer already tabled a year ago in a different way. The pensions deal was done before the BASSA ballot had even closed.

So what makes you think BASSA have done so well? Could it be that they just forgot to mention this/lied to you in their previous comms in order to whip up the strike? Take a look at my post no.529 on 23rd Jan:-

Funny old thing that, BASSA have now got an 18.75% increase to pensionable pay (all the work on this was done by BALPA by the way)

Joetom

You are beginning to sound a bit like a broken record. There are several (inconvenient) bits of the argument you keep ignoring:-

1) As said above, this money has been there from day 1 of the company's original offer of a transition arrangement for flying staff which was made a year ago. Did you object to it then? Now the money is being used in a different way, all of a sudden people are crying foul.

2) Flying staff are having their retirement age raised from 55 to 65 (10 years) whereas for ground staff it was only 60 to 65 (5 years). Hence the transition arrangements in (1) above. BA acknowledged the unfairness of this by making the transition offer in the first place.

3) By raising the pensionable pay scales by 18.75%, the employees contribution into the scheme also raises by 18.75%, thereby causing a reduction in take home pay. So the flying staff are paying more in to get more out.

4) The trustees have agreed to this - they have a legal obligation to see fair play and that one group is not advantaged at the expense of another

Overstress

Absolutely no need to be so harsh on Jet II. BASSA have been so economical with the truth/lied so often in their comms that a lot of CC don't know the reality of the situation. BASSA have kept saying "believe us & noboby else". At least on this forum we have had the opportunity of putting other points of view. You shouting Jet II down like that does nothing to foster free speech.

absolutely untrue - the rest of the company have not been offered the opportunity to have pensionable pay increased, an increase in increments or a 4.5% pay rise.

Anybody in doubt about the complete climbdown which BASSA was forced into (if it was such a result why have two BASSA reps resigned in protest at what has been agreed by the TGWU on their behalf?) why not compare the 12original points in BASSA's list of demands and see what the result has been for each item?

Joetom,

Your post is so full of inaccuracies it appears your mind is made up but for what it's worth:

The pension negotiations were conducted between BA, BALPA, TGWU, BASSA and the GMB. With some effort the unions presented a coherent plan and a united front (until BASSA deliberately avoided attending the meeting of January 4th). BA had no more desire for industrial unrest over pensions than the unions (well BALPA anyway). Presented with a meaningful, fully analysed and affordable alternative to the original proposals BA struck a deal, also acceptable to the trustees incidentally. It was not a gain for anybody. We will all either have to work longer for the same pension or retire as originally planned but with less. So it was not BALPA 'being offered a good deal'.

BASSA's ballot took everybody (including BALPA) by suprise. Given the level of co-operation over pensions one would have thought that simple courtesy would have meant that BALPA would have been advised of their impending ballot. BASSA were trying to hurt WW with little thought for the consequences to BA, their members or, most importantly our passengers.

The pension money of £6m for CC was part of the proposed pension deal all along. BASSA have not just 'won' this as part of the strike settlement. Some weeks ago one of the BALPA reps. predicted they (BASSA) would use the money to increse CC pensionable pay but that they would keep quiet until proclaiming victory in their dispute. The four extra pay increments apply to post 1997 joiners and have been funded by NOT backdating the RPI + 0.2% payrise to October (historically backfdating has always occurred).

So please explain to me what BASSA have actually achieved from their origional demands, apart from screwing our passengers that is.

Perhaps if BASSA members behaved as adults they would be treated as adults. Respect is earned not awarded.

I fail to see how working longer or retiring on less is a rise in pensions. You are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the whole issue. The rise in pensionable pay is funded to offset having to work 10 years longer. It also increase everybody's contribution rates (percentage of a larger pensionable figure).

The pensions deals was finalised on January 4th, Nothing any union does now will change that. Ground staff are NOT funding the 'tab' for flying staff. Do you truly believe that, with their legal obligations and the penalties for getting it wrong, that the trustees of the pension fund would have agreed a totally inequitable deal?

Refresh my memory and tell me how much longer you will have to work for your originally promised pension.

The GMB are posturing. ALL the unions involved in the pensions negotiations KNOW that the deal is the best that was available for all and whatever any unions threaten it will not change. It is done.

This is getting tedious.

Neither have the rest of the company had to suffer a 10 year increase in working life.

The 4.2% payrise (not backdated) is RPI = 0.2%. The pay negotiations for the rest of the staff, including pilots, have just started. For those outside BA the last 3 year pay deal ran out last October!

So if you think that a fraction over RPI is a good deal and worth a strike well......

The increments do not affect anybody other than post 1997 joiners.

Jet II

My apologies, I thought your original comment was referring only to the pensions settlement, not the whole thing. This was reinforced by you adding at the end because, of course, flight crew have only negotiated so far on pensions, not pay.

I can't however agree with your other sentiments. The 4th purser on 747's is going and the pay rise was not backdated, as it should have been, to 1st Oct 2006 (when the last pay deal ran out). Both of these provide the money to fund the 4 extra increments. All that has happened is that money the CC community already had has been slightly redistributed. Was a strike needed for that?

true - I have only to 'suffer' a 5 year increase but without any of the sweeteners offered to BALPA or BASSA.

I would also point out that you are not being asked to work an extra 10 years for nothing - from the day I joined this company I have listened to FC complaining about being forced out at 55 and I've lost count of the times I've gone on the flight deck of other airlines and found 'retired' BA FC.


who will be with the company for decades to come - boosting their take-home pay by a significant amount.

I can see why you think the results didnt make a strike worthwhile but you forget that the majority of ground staff are not on the very generous salary package that you are and an increase in pensionable pay and extra increments would make a big difference to their standard of living

The 'sweetener', as you like to call it, was as compensation for the 5 years over and above the 5 years that ALL will have to work.

And your point is? I can see no relevance to what you are saying. We are talking about loss of retirement benefits or working longer to achieve those same benefits.

[quote]The increments do not affect anybody other than post 1997 joiners.
who will be with the company for decades to come - boosting their take-home pay by a significant amount.[quote]

Self funded.

Again irrelevant and open to anybody with an ATPL.

No it won't it helps offset 5 years of the extra 10 needed to earn the same pension benefits.

It is plain that you are looking at the world through green glasses and I will leave further explanations to somebody else. I fear your mind is made up and judging by the paucity of your arguments I am wasting my time.