BA pilots 'prepared to strike'?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viewing the Sunday papers & items relating to BA and aviation there was also another item in the pink 'Business' paper. It stated that several sources confirm that the 'open sky' freedom will be signed at the end of the month by the USA and EU committee. It added that BA has already made plans to exercise 5th freedom rights when the 06 October winter schedules kicks off. BMI will look to ceasing a number of their LHR-EU routes and code share / lease to permit switching to longhaul (which has always been their stated intention). Should this come to pass then clearly this will place much greater emphasis on pensions and BA costs at LHR. Whether there is any credance in the article it must follow that eventually it will be signed and there is much to be resolved within BA prior to that and for WW a greater urgency to settle the pensions issue?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW's "leadership team", (and I put that term in quotes advisedly), talk to people in the airline every day. One of them has let slip that WW is particularly keen to enable access for contract pilots to the flying that the BA brand sells. He does not want the current situation of being tied to a sole source, the pilot employees on a BA contract, to continue unchanged. He HAS, seen how Ry@nair use contractors to scr@ew the employees of Ry@nair and he is said to thoroughly approve of the technique.
Can he close "exisiting" BA? Theoretically no because the size of the pension deficit, which he would have to make good on closure, dwarfs BA's reserves of cash to pay it.
Could he close "existing" BA after a rights issue had left him with enough cash to pay off the existing scheme liabilities? Lets say if a strike was called that shut BA down for a prolonged period? Yes, he could. It would not be a case of "re-employing sacked workers", it would be a case of a wholly new legal entity coming to the market place for employees in the aftermath of such an event. The rights issue money would be used to recapitalise the new operation and most probably be issued to the investors as shares in the "new" operation.
Will the City tolerate this loss of revenue whilst the dust settles? My GUESS is that they will, for, as they see it, the prize of a BA with NO future pension liabilities is well worth having. Like a supermarket, a profitable airline is hugely cash generative, and they know it.
Interestingly, the current pension proposals as they relate to pilots amount to a virtual scheme closure anyway if you have done less than about 15 years in BA. In the face of this, pilots have almost nothing to lose by going on strike and my guess is that they will if this proposal stays unchanged.
I know this will delight some readers here who eagerly await the jobs they assume will flow from all of this. The problem is that should BA get away with the current pension proposal our costs will be such that many of your levels of recompense will come under very close scrutiny - you can picture the scene, an accountants' office somewhere, a beady-eyed observer sees BA an A320 pilots doing 900 hours a year in shorthaul, short stage length flying with no pension rights and a salary less than Ry@nair offer SOME of their pilots will say: "right, we are going to have to cut our wages too".
Indeed, this is EXACTLY what WW and his advisors WANT, a "virtuous cycle" of wage cuts as each operator seeks to race to the bottom first. In that scenario, he wins every which way.
This may well be capitalism at its finest, but I dont see dentists meekly agreeing to a government contract that scr@ews them over, or GP's working for a pittance these days. Flying remains a position of vast public trust and I guess we all, have our own "bottom line". Mine is my pension - I have not enough time to make good the cuts BA are proposing such that I face flying into early old age (65) to retire on a pittance. I suspect BA know that a lot of people will either fail a medical or a sim before 65, so "saving" them even more. In the sim failure case they will ultimately boot you out early and apply an actuarial reduction to your piddling pension for "early retirement".
In the face of this I have nothing to lose by striking and everything to gain. There is a growing awareness that bulgeing airliner order books generate a need for pilots that an insurance company will underwrite. Either a better job elsewhere will come from this, or it'll be time to leave the "industry", no bad thing perhaps when we have sunk to the level of trying to compete with a carrier who charge a disabled man £15 for a wheelchair to reach the terminal.(Hello again, Ry@nair).
I've long maintained that anyone who can crack an ATPL, conversion to a jet, MCC etc etc has plenty of talent that could be used in many fields, most more positive than this one. Its a sad reflection, given that one of the pleasures of the job has been the quality of people I've flown with over the years.
In summary, I think we will see a strike the like of which the airline industry has not seen for years. I think existing BA is doomed to fail as these proposals will be rejected by all the staff groups. The city will accept a radical solution. There will be an attempt to contractorise BA flight crew. Ultimately, I think experienced pilots will be the winners. The supply is not infinite and the demand for experienced, type-rated people is rising long term. There may be bumps in the road (Iran war anyone?) but the trend is upwards.
Can he close "exisiting" BA? Theoretically no because the size of the pension deficit, which he would have to make good on closure, dwarfs BA's reserves of cash to pay it.
Could he close "existing" BA after a rights issue had left him with enough cash to pay off the existing scheme liabilities? Lets say if a strike was called that shut BA down for a prolonged period? Yes, he could. It would not be a case of "re-employing sacked workers", it would be a case of a wholly new legal entity coming to the market place for employees in the aftermath of such an event. The rights issue money would be used to recapitalise the new operation and most probably be issued to the investors as shares in the "new" operation.
Will the City tolerate this loss of revenue whilst the dust settles? My GUESS is that they will, for, as they see it, the prize of a BA with NO future pension liabilities is well worth having. Like a supermarket, a profitable airline is hugely cash generative, and they know it.
Interestingly, the current pension proposals as they relate to pilots amount to a virtual scheme closure anyway if you have done less than about 15 years in BA. In the face of this, pilots have almost nothing to lose by going on strike and my guess is that they will if this proposal stays unchanged.
I know this will delight some readers here who eagerly await the jobs they assume will flow from all of this. The problem is that should BA get away with the current pension proposal our costs will be such that many of your levels of recompense will come under very close scrutiny - you can picture the scene, an accountants' office somewhere, a beady-eyed observer sees BA an A320 pilots doing 900 hours a year in shorthaul, short stage length flying with no pension rights and a salary less than Ry@nair offer SOME of their pilots will say: "right, we are going to have to cut our wages too".
Indeed, this is EXACTLY what WW and his advisors WANT, a "virtuous cycle" of wage cuts as each operator seeks to race to the bottom first. In that scenario, he wins every which way.
This may well be capitalism at its finest, but I dont see dentists meekly agreeing to a government contract that scr@ews them over, or GP's working for a pittance these days. Flying remains a position of vast public trust and I guess we all, have our own "bottom line". Mine is my pension - I have not enough time to make good the cuts BA are proposing such that I face flying into early old age (65) to retire on a pittance. I suspect BA know that a lot of people will either fail a medical or a sim before 65, so "saving" them even more. In the sim failure case they will ultimately boot you out early and apply an actuarial reduction to your piddling pension for "early retirement".
In the face of this I have nothing to lose by striking and everything to gain. There is a growing awareness that bulgeing airliner order books generate a need for pilots that an insurance company will underwrite. Either a better job elsewhere will come from this, or it'll be time to leave the "industry", no bad thing perhaps when we have sunk to the level of trying to compete with a carrier who charge a disabled man £15 for a wheelchair to reach the terminal.(Hello again, Ry@nair).
I've long maintained that anyone who can crack an ATPL, conversion to a jet, MCC etc etc has plenty of talent that could be used in many fields, most more positive than this one. Its a sad reflection, given that one of the pleasures of the job has been the quality of people I've flown with over the years.
In summary, I think we will see a strike the like of which the airline industry has not seen for years. I think existing BA is doomed to fail as these proposals will be rejected by all the staff groups. The city will accept a radical solution. There will be an attempt to contractorise BA flight crew. Ultimately, I think experienced pilots will be the winners. The supply is not infinite and the demand for experienced, type-rated people is rising long term. There may be bumps in the road (Iran war anyone?) but the trend is upwards.
Last edited by ShortfinalFred; 12th Apr 2006 at 16:26.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: York International
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too much moderating going on here Mr mod, can't you take a wind up?
I've not written anything offensive or personal just at variance to your views.
You are exercising the typical Nigel arrogance and head in sand attitude that will eventually give me your job if you are not careful. There are plenty like me with the time and type experience to help Willie out when it becomes necessary.
I've not written anything offensive or personal just at variance to your views.
You are exercising the typical Nigel arrogance and head in sand attitude that will eventually give me your job if you are not careful. There are plenty like me with the time and type experience to help Willie out when it becomes necessary.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the terms offered Mr747, you are welcome to it. Virgin's 750 hours a year looks pretty good alongside the BA pension offer - effectively 900 hours a year and no pension. But I guess you'll be willing to do it for even less, Mr 747? What does that make you?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShortfinalFred, you say of WW, "Can he close "exisiting" BA? Theoretically no because the size of the pension deficit, which he would have to make good on closure, dwarfs BA's reserves of cash to pay it."
On the one hand you say BA should make good and you'll strike if they don't. On the other you recognise that they can't make good.
Like the pension fund, something in your reasoning does not add up.
On the one hand you say BA should make good and you'll strike if they don't. On the other you recognise that they can't make good.
Like the pension fund, something in your reasoning does not add up.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW only has to make good the deficit IF he closes the pension fund NOW. The fund itself, now closed to new members, does not "mature" for another 30 to 40 years. Who can say what investment returns will be over such a period? If they are bad enough to make NAPS, the closed fund, umworkable then I suggest capitalism as an economic organising principle will be dead.
Indeed, it is widely recognised that the current pensions "crisis" is very artificially induced. If another government wins the next election and restores the dividend tax credit to pensions so notoriously stolen by Gordon Brown when Labour came to power (forget "NEW Labour" - as we've seen, its tax and spend all the way), then the outlook for pensions changes exponentially, as it would if the FRS 17 funding requirement was altered, i.e. companies did not have to continually look at an immediate snapshot of their pension liability and put that immediate snapshot against their balance sheet as a debt. Over time in the historic model of pension provision in the UK, the liabilities and assets of a fund evened out over the investment cycle. FRS 17 has forced an artificial crisis in many ways by creating an immediate "debt" on its balance sheet that a company in reality is NOT immediately called upon to pay, unless, of course, it voluntarily shuts down.
So, no, I dont accept your logic one bit. BA CAN afford to pay its existing pension liabilities, it just doesn't want to. It chooses instead to try and rip-off its employees and work them on the principle "fly till you die" - average life expectancy for a longhaul pilot retiring at 65 - 18 MONTHS - some retirement eh?! That'll fix the problem all by itself!
I re-iterate: there is going to be a strike the likes of which UK aviation has'nt seen for years. If anyone else thinks they'll win out at our expense by it, they must be deluding themselves. See previous post about the "race to the bottom".
Indeed, it is widely recognised that the current pensions "crisis" is very artificially induced. If another government wins the next election and restores the dividend tax credit to pensions so notoriously stolen by Gordon Brown when Labour came to power (forget "NEW Labour" - as we've seen, its tax and spend all the way), then the outlook for pensions changes exponentially, as it would if the FRS 17 funding requirement was altered, i.e. companies did not have to continually look at an immediate snapshot of their pension liability and put that immediate snapshot against their balance sheet as a debt. Over time in the historic model of pension provision in the UK, the liabilities and assets of a fund evened out over the investment cycle. FRS 17 has forced an artificial crisis in many ways by creating an immediate "debt" on its balance sheet that a company in reality is NOT immediately called upon to pay, unless, of course, it voluntarily shuts down.
So, no, I dont accept your logic one bit. BA CAN afford to pay its existing pension liabilities, it just doesn't want to. It chooses instead to try and rip-off its employees and work them on the principle "fly till you die" - average life expectancy for a longhaul pilot retiring at 65 - 18 MONTHS - some retirement eh?! That'll fix the problem all by itself!
I re-iterate: there is going to be a strike the likes of which UK aviation has'nt seen for years. If anyone else thinks they'll win out at our expense by it, they must be deluding themselves. See previous post about the "race to the bottom".
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I take it you are in favour of a massive pay cut for all pilots M.Mouse? Believe me, you may bet that IF WW succeeds in eliminating pensions at BA it will lead to a ratcheting-down of pay across the UK airline sector, but then perhaps that suits your agenda?
The Societey of British Actuaries is the source for much data related to life expectancy and pensions.
The Societey of British Actuaries is the source for much data related to life expectancy and pensions.
Controversial, moi?
So I take it you are in favour of a massive pay cut for all pilots M.Mouse?
So please quote the actual data from which you extracted that gem because I cannot find it.
Last edited by M.Mouse; 12th Apr 2006 at 20:33.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said S F Fred.
It will be very interesting to see Gordon take the next bite out of UK pensions, think it was 1998 for the first bite, guess he was hoping companies would act quicker and paw loads more cash into them to cover his tracks.
Looks like many have now eased the problems he made.
When he takes his second bite, no one can say anythink because we accepted first bite was OK.
Second bite will not be the last either.
Watt a state we in in the UK.
Hats off to our French friends this week who got a rubbish law changed.
Gordon should do the honest thing, revert to the tax credits pre 98, pay back all the cash, pay interest on said cash and pay a fine of at least 20% but upto 100% just like they charge Joe Public when he gets it wrong.
It will be very interesting to see Gordon take the next bite out of UK pensions, think it was 1998 for the first bite, guess he was hoping companies would act quicker and paw loads more cash into them to cover his tracks.
Looks like many have now eased the problems he made.
When he takes his second bite, no one can say anythink because we accepted first bite was OK.
Second bite will not be the last either.
Watt a state we in in the UK.
Hats off to our French friends this week who got a rubbish law changed.
Gordon should do the honest thing, revert to the tax credits pre 98, pay back all the cash, pay interest on said cash and pay a fine of at least 20% but upto 100% just like they charge Joe Public when he gets it wrong.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFred
Theoretical nonsense! Tell me the name of ANY PLC that has done this.. if not why not?
The board of any public company has legal obligations to the shareholders. BA soil their pants at the mere suggestion of strike action as it hammers forward bookings and hits the shareholders in the wallet - let alone the thought of winding up a profitable company!
Pensions are no more of a dilema to BA than the price of fuel, 9/11, or SARS. They are still flying.
You have just reminded me why I haven't bothered with this forum for so long.. so many self appointed experts peddling total claptrap. For those facing the decimation of their life planning this is a serious business and your brand of nonsense is unhelpful to say the least.
Rant over.
Theoretical nonsense! Tell me the name of ANY PLC that has done this.. if not why not?
The board of any public company has legal obligations to the shareholders. BA soil their pants at the mere suggestion of strike action as it hammers forward bookings and hits the shareholders in the wallet - let alone the thought of winding up a profitable company!
Pensions are no more of a dilema to BA than the price of fuel, 9/11, or SARS. They are still flying.
You have just reminded me why I haven't bothered with this forum for so long.. so many self appointed experts peddling total claptrap. For those facing the decimation of their life planning this is a serious business and your brand of nonsense is unhelpful to say the least.
Rant over.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SF Fred...
I've dug up some interesting facts which don't really seem to support a life expectancy of 18 months for long-haul flight crew as you suggest.
(Source: http://www.barnett-waddingham.co.uk/...3/viewDocument)
Now, BA themselves are on record to say that life expectancy of their flight crews exceeds that of the general population by 3-5 years in this thread here:
http://www.britishairways.com/travel...c/public/en_gb
It should also be mentioned that the actuarial profession (in response to the Pension's Commission Report by Lord Turner), published a table which shows:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pd...aper1_resp.pdf
So... one can draw 2 conclusions...
1) The average life expectancy of a long-haul BA pilot will be 20+ Years from age 65 and
2) It is likely that SPA will rise beyond age 65 in the future (as proposed by Lord Turner and the actuarial profession). But whilst there is room for Flight Crew compulsory retirement to increase also - it is doubtful that it will increase beyond age 65 by the time current pensions mature. Not only is life expectancy itself increasing, but with a fixed retirement age for flight crew, the proportion of working lifetime to pensionable lifetime is decreasing. It is therefore very doubtful that the current pension arrangements would be sufficient.
I happen to believe that BA pilots are being treated VERY unfairly (and I am not one of them - although I am a BALPA member), and the real solution surely is to review the level of contributions being paid by scheme members and the Company (amongst other measures) - NOT to take away pension benefits as being proposed. If the BA pilots want to strike I would be 100% behind them - but there does need to be a real attempt by BALPA, their members and (not least) the Scheme's Trustees and Financial advisors to reach an equitable solution.
I've dug up some interesting facts which don't really seem to support a life expectancy of 18 months for long-haul flight crew as you suggest.
The mortality tables in most common use currently are the "92" Series. These relate to a study of insured pensioner mortality during the period 1991 to 1994 by the Continuous Mortality Investigation (CMI), a research project organised by the Actuarial Profession. During the course of 2005 the CMI published its proposals for a new set of standard mortality tables - the "00" Series. These tables are based on the experience of 1999 to 2002. We expect that final tables will be officially published around Spring 2006.
Now, BA themselves are on record to say that life expectancy of their flight crews exceeds that of the general population by 3-5 years in this thread here:
http://www.britishairways.com/travel...c/public/en_gb
Effects on crew
British Airways works closely with the UK Government, Civil Aviation Authority and the National Radiological Protection Board and has monitored cosmic radiation on board its aircraft for more than 20 years. Monitoring instruments were permanently installed on Concorde and regular measurements are also made on long range Boeing 747-400 aircraft. In addition, British Airways has undertaken epidemiological studies examining the incidence of disease and life expectancy of flight crew over the last 40 years.
It has been found that pilots and flight engineers have an increased life expectancy of between 3 and 5 years compared to the general population. Death rates from heart disease and all cancers combined are considerably less in flight crew then for the population of England and Wales as a whole and, although rare, death from melanoma (which is associated with exposure to sunlight) was the only cause of cancer in excess. Cancer such as leukaemia, which may be linked to radiation exposure, was lower than for the general population.
Further larger studies are continuing to which British Airways is contributing and as a result, more information will be available in due course.
British Airways works closely with the UK Government, Civil Aviation Authority and the National Radiological Protection Board and has monitored cosmic radiation on board its aircraft for more than 20 years. Monitoring instruments were permanently installed on Concorde and regular measurements are also made on long range Boeing 747-400 aircraft. In addition, British Airways has undertaken epidemiological studies examining the incidence of disease and life expectancy of flight crew over the last 40 years.
It has been found that pilots and flight engineers have an increased life expectancy of between 3 and 5 years compared to the general population. Death rates from heart disease and all cancers combined are considerably less in flight crew then for the population of England and Wales as a whole and, although rare, death from melanoma (which is associated with exposure to sunlight) was the only cause of cancer in excess. Cancer such as leukaemia, which may be linked to radiation exposure, was lower than for the general population.
Further larger studies are continuing to which British Airways is contributing and as a result, more information will be available in due course.
...the average life expectancy for a male beyond SPA (State Pensionable Age, 65) is 19.4 years in 2005 and expected to rise to 20.9 years by 2050 - (an increase of 1.5 years). Male life expectancy at age 65 has increased by a little over 5.5 years over the period 1985 to 2005.
So... one can draw 2 conclusions...
1) The average life expectancy of a long-haul BA pilot will be 20+ Years from age 65 and
2) It is likely that SPA will rise beyond age 65 in the future (as proposed by Lord Turner and the actuarial profession). But whilst there is room for Flight Crew compulsory retirement to increase also - it is doubtful that it will increase beyond age 65 by the time current pensions mature. Not only is life expectancy itself increasing, but with a fixed retirement age for flight crew, the proportion of working lifetime to pensionable lifetime is decreasing. It is therefore very doubtful that the current pension arrangements would be sufficient.
I happen to believe that BA pilots are being treated VERY unfairly (and I am not one of them - although I am a BALPA member), and the real solution surely is to review the level of contributions being paid by scheme members and the Company (amongst other measures) - NOT to take away pension benefits as being proposed. If the BA pilots want to strike I would be 100% behind them - but there does need to be a real attempt by BALPA, their members and (not least) the Scheme's Trustees and Financial advisors to reach an equitable solution.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its my future too Blueup, thanks very much! Claptrap is it? Why, then, is a member of the leadership team saying that NorthWest airlines engineered a trip to Chapter 11 precisely in order to rid itself of pension obligations and yet, ON THE FACE of it, that option is denied BA, HOWEVER IT REMAINS AN ATTRACTIVE ROUTE IF WE CAN ACHIEVE IT LOCALLY, he went on to say.
This is a RUMOUR network mate, and that rumour comes from a member of the leadership team, as BA laughingly call it.
Oh yes, this is serious alright, steal the pension that I contracted for and I go right out on strike. "Self appointed expert" - you pompous ass. Thats why I avoided pp network for a while too, to avoid self righteous j@rks like you.
This is a RUMOUR network mate, and that rumour comes from a member of the leadership team, as BA laughingly call it.
Oh yes, this is serious alright, steal the pension that I contracted for and I go right out on strike. "Self appointed expert" - you pompous ass. Thats why I avoided pp network for a while too, to avoid self righteous j@rks like you.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The changes BA have put forward only mention T and C reductions.
Why don't they talk of keeping the same T and C's and even ask staff to pay more in.
Looks to me like BA want out of pensions full stop.
If the pensions get watered down this time and again next time wolf at the door, staff will be happy enough to shut the company pension down and take cash out.
BA are playing a very cool hand.........
Why don't they talk of keeping the same T and C's and even ask staff to pay more in.
Looks to me like BA want out of pensions full stop.
If the pensions get watered down this time and again next time wolf at the door, staff will be happy enough to shut the company pension down and take cash out.
BA are playing a very cool hand.........
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFred..
With the greatest of respect it is claptrap.. we don't have Chapter 11, there is no mechanism (to my knowledge) in UK or EU law. It's a non-starter!
I take your point it may be peddled by a suit and this is indeed a rumour network. However the suit has you doing his dirty work for him. More naive colleagues (not just pilots read this) are overwhelmed by the BA bullsh*t machine already. Our tuggie this evening said exactly that and was resigned to the fate BA have chosen for him.
That is why (BA) BALPA are employing experts.. to sort the cr*p from reality and gosh there has been a lot of cr*p peddled thus far!
See you on the picket line
With the greatest of respect it is claptrap.. we don't have Chapter 11, there is no mechanism (to my knowledge) in UK or EU law. It's a non-starter!
I take your point it may be peddled by a suit and this is indeed a rumour network. However the suit has you doing his dirty work for him. More naive colleagues (not just pilots read this) are overwhelmed by the BA bullsh*t machine already. Our tuggie this evening said exactly that and was resigned to the fate BA have chosen for him.
That is why (BA) BALPA are employing experts.. to sort the cr*p from reality and gosh there has been a lot of cr*p peddled thus far!
See you on the picket line
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFF, you intrigue me. On the one hand you have some very reasoned and well researched points on the source of this issue. Your response seems less reasoned however, and more from the knee-jerk man-the-barricades school.
I raised the point of tax credits about 10 pages ago, albeit not as eloquently as you. And that's the rub. This is a crisis created by a government that private business is having to sort out. It goes far wider than BA. All the major companies that used to run final salary schemes are closing them to new members and, in some cases, closing them all together. Companies are asking people to work longer and that is exactly what the Turner report says.
This crisis is not created by BA. The airline is in a reasonable financial state by comparison with other airlines but it's not exactly cash rich (despite what look like eye-popping numbers). As BA Beancounter says, all the cash is pretty much allocated on future commitments.
The basis on which these schemes were set up was that corporate earnings paid to pension funds were not taxed twice. As I understand it, they are now taxed twice thanks to Gordon's tax xhanges in 98. So the pension funds have less cash to meet their obligations.
This is a political issue. Vote Labour out and have the Conservatives remove that tax burden on pension funds.
As for manning the barricades and destroying BA, I simply do not understand that mindset. You will cut off your nose to spite your face. Half a cake is better than no cake.
Play brinkmanship, sure, but recognise that it's a dangerous game. Having worked out in reasoned terms what the source of the crisis is, a reasoned response is what is called for to maximise your benefits. Anything else and you're going to lose.
I raised the point of tax credits about 10 pages ago, albeit not as eloquently as you. And that's the rub. This is a crisis created by a government that private business is having to sort out. It goes far wider than BA. All the major companies that used to run final salary schemes are closing them to new members and, in some cases, closing them all together. Companies are asking people to work longer and that is exactly what the Turner report says.
This crisis is not created by BA. The airline is in a reasonable financial state by comparison with other airlines but it's not exactly cash rich (despite what look like eye-popping numbers). As BA Beancounter says, all the cash is pretty much allocated on future commitments.
The basis on which these schemes were set up was that corporate earnings paid to pension funds were not taxed twice. As I understand it, they are now taxed twice thanks to Gordon's tax xhanges in 98. So the pension funds have less cash to meet their obligations.
This is a political issue. Vote Labour out and have the Conservatives remove that tax burden on pension funds.
As for manning the barricades and destroying BA, I simply do not understand that mindset. You will cut off your nose to spite your face. Half a cake is better than no cake.
Play brinkmanship, sure, but recognise that it's a dangerous game. Having worked out in reasoned terms what the source of the crisis is, a reasoned response is what is called for to maximise your benefits. Anything else and you're going to lose.
Controversial, moi?
SFF ignores the fact that his sweeping assertion has just been proved to be what it appeared - arrant nonsense and launches into personal attacks and more fantasy. He may have had some good points but has neatly illustrated why nothing he says can now be taken seriously.
Regarding increased contributions they alone have very little impact on the pension deficit. The one thing that has a very dramatic effect is a change to the accrual rates.
Regarding increased contributions they alone have very little impact on the pension deficit. The one thing that has a very dramatic effect is a change to the accrual rates.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Out of the blue
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it would be fair to say that if BA take half our cake they will be back for the other half next year, and then beat the crap out of us until we give them our apple!
This is less about the survival of BA post Brownian economics, and more about an opportunist money grabbing management.
This is less about the survival of BA post Brownian economics, and more about an opportunist money grabbing management.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Half a cake is better than no cake.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actuary* speaking.
If the "average life expectancy for a longhaul pilot retiring at 65" was 18 months, that means for every such pilot who lived for more than 10 years about 8 would have to die within one year of retirement to make the figures work - I find this unlikely.
On the subject of Final Salary pension schemes, those who attribute much of the problem to Gordon Brown are (IMHO) spot on. However, closing schemes to new entrants often makes a lot of sense. Final Salary schemes only work in an environment where staff can reasonably expect to remain in the scheme for at least 10 years - preferably well over 20 (this is the amount of time it takes to build up a reasonable fund value, capable of providing a worthwhile, 'frozen' pension)). There are very few occupations left where this is the case, although (as a complete outsider) I could well imagine that BA flight crew could be one of them.
* an actuary is someone that always wanted to be an accountant, but lacked the personality for it ...
On the subject of Final Salary pension schemes, those who attribute much of the problem to Gordon Brown are (IMHO) spot on. However, closing schemes to new entrants often makes a lot of sense. Final Salary schemes only work in an environment where staff can reasonably expect to remain in the scheme for at least 10 years - preferably well over 20 (this is the amount of time it takes to build up a reasonable fund value, capable of providing a worthwhile, 'frozen' pension)). There are very few occupations left where this is the case, although (as a complete outsider) I could well imagine that BA flight crew could be one of them.
* an actuary is someone that always wanted to be an accountant, but lacked the personality for it ...