BA pilots 'prepared to strike'?

[PAXboy]

Rolls-Royce proposes pensions shake-up
BBC web news
"Aerospace engine maker Rolls-Royce has announced it may close its final salary pension schemes to new members. The firm has 21,373 active members in three pension schemes, one of which has been closed to new members since 1999."

Now the other two may do likewise, with the company in return putting in a £500m lump sum across the three and increasing its contributions.

The move is an attempt to reduce the combined deficit of the schemes, which stood at £1.28bn on 31 December 2005.

[behind_the_second_midland]

Have some of you lot ever visited planet Earth?

Barking.

[ShortfinalFred]

Well here it is, the link I was looking for where the mortality information came from -apparently a Boeing study based on retiree data.

http://home.att.net/~coachthee/Archi...rementage.html

I live in the real world Mr Midland. I knew the contract I signed and I have watched BA rack-up record debt levels by buying pure cr@pola, whilst running an operation that makes a whelk stall look like a model of efficiency, and now I am expected to pay for the profligacy of others with my pension. I tell you one thing for sure - if WW gets his "real world view" imposed on OUR T's and C's then, to maintain your company's "real world competitive advantage", yours are in for a beating as sure as eggs are, well, eggs.

The raw fact is I flat-out will not accept the cancellation of my contract, the doing of which will enrich Mr W@lsh beyond the dreams of Cresus, (the particularly sordid part of the whole proposition). If BA cancel the pension, OR bidline, then its game over. If we are all going down the contractor route, and I still maintain that this is the route WW would like to take - indeed his pension "proposals" are so outlandish as to all but guarantee a strike, which makes me think he is trawling for a shut down excuse, then what is there to lose? Sure, I should be an altruist and toil away, mortality data in mind, for the better good of BA, like it was a religious order perhaps. I dont think so - the current management "team" are set on out bully-boying even Mr O Le@ry's cack-handed mob. I've seen more loyalty amongst parking attendants than they can drum up between them, and indeed I now feel the raw contempt for them they so regularly show us.

No, its game over for that sorry lot and I dont give a ..mn. Like it or not, and I'd be the first to say the independants have had a raw deal over many years - the Dan Air takeover being a particularly sorry example - BA WAS the benchmark contract. If they get away with this then EVERY UK professional pilot is going to feel a very chill wind indeed - their companies will HAVE to in order to maintain a cost differential.

I will fight for my contract and if we lose then its pastures new and no looking back.

[Freehills]

Well, that data is

1) 25+ years out of date

2) Applies to Boeing aerospace workers, not pilots (note, Boeing workers retiring before 1980 would have been working in WW2 and cold war - before many OHSA regulations. I guess took in lots of nasty fumes, asbestos, etc)

3) SPEEA (Boeing union) have debunked it, and say the 18 month claim is incorrect

http://www.speea.org/general_info/files/life.htm

[ShortfinalFred]

OK Mr freehills, why are so many of my contempories losing their medicals in their mid fourties? At 900 hours a year shorthaul "the BA way" you'd be lucky to get to our existing NRA of 55, let alone make it to the new proposed one of 65. BA's proposal amounts to fly at CAP 371 limits until you a) fail a medical b) fail a sim repeatedly or c) last-out till "retirement" by which time the environment you will have worked in for so long will have materially shortened your life expectancy in retirement.

I dont accept past BA mortality data based on an NRA of 50 and flying hours a third less than people average now. There is no comparison to today's BA.

Moving on from arguments about mortality data, within itself the "proposal" is skewed against flight crew: ground staff work for 2 more years to achieve the new pensionable age, pilots work for..............ten more years. Average loss of pension for anyone with around 15years to go or more to the the "OLD" NRA of 55 and who carries on to the new age of 65 - circa 40 to 45%.

I repeat - this "proposal" represents such a grievous assault on pilot remuneration whilst being skewed deliberately against flight crew as against other groups of staff that it CAN ONLY be designed to provoke a strike. That being so - what outcome does WW forsee flowing from the aftermath?

I suggest that the outcome he seeks is the contractorisation of BA flightcrew on terms that will astonish even the UK independant sector. I also suggest he will fail for one precise reason: BA pilots will not and can not accept this and will strike until WW is quietly removed back to the fair and green land of Ireland whence he came. Those that think WW can win better have pretty deep pockets because they are going to need them.

[Re-Heat]

The raw fact is I flat-out will not accept the cancellation of my contract, the doing of which will enrich Mr W@lsh beyond the dreams of Cresus

Unfortunately mate, what the pension pays out is not part of your contract, and is not technically a legally binding promise.

Though I agree wholeheartedly with ensuring that people are not screwed out of rightfully earned pensions, there is - as I have said before - a complete head in sand mentality running through this thread.

[Phil.Capron]

Phil Capron

I'm sure that some BA pilots will remember that BA studied mortality rates (of BA pilots and found them to be very similar if not better than the population at large.Pilots are generally fitter than....
Being very cynical for a moment,BA I believe have a very strong wish to post a dividend.When this pension debate is concluded I don't think shareholders will have to wait very long.
Not even BA is daft enough to believe it will get everything it wants.Hang on in there everybody.Retirement is nice.Don't spoil it.ATB.

[BikerMark]

Sorry for asking what might seem to be a dumb question, but exactly what does Willie Walsh stand personally to gain if the pension issue is settled on BA's terms.

Is there a specific bonus linked to this in his contract or is his bonus linked to achieving the 10% margin overall?

Mark.

[M.Mouse]

From BA's last financial report the remuneration committee (or whatever it is called) awarded the senior management bonuses of between 150 and 250% of basic salary conditional upon achieving the aimed for 10% operating margin.

A note was included that these bonuses were also a way of avoiding the same managers exceeding Robber Brown's pension CAP.

And they want me to take a reduction in my pension?

[beaver eager]

Originally Posted by M.Mouse

From BA's last financial report the remuneration committee (or whatever it is called) awarded the senior management bonuses of between 150 and 250% of basic salary conditional upon achieving the aimed for 10% operating margin.
A note was included that these bonuses were also a way of avoiding the same managers exceeding Robber Brown's pension CAP.
And they want me to take a reduction in my pension?

And therin you have encapsulated EXACTLY what this is all about.

[Da Dog]

a simple equation;- WW screws everyone over by taking away the pensions= more chance of BA hitting a 10% profit margin= 250% bonus for WW and the most senior managers.

Well they can off

[BikerMark]

Thanks M. Mouse, that's most illuminating. I've mislaid my copy of the financial report.

At the Owning Our Future workshops, motivation is highlighted as a particular issue. It's indeed "motivating" to know that our efforts in working to achieve a 10% margin will be so rewarding for some.

[Skylion]

This seems to go on and one. Some relevant facts are:

1) This is about as good a deal as is ever going to be offered and is very similar in structure to the best of those being offered by other UK companies in the same situation.
2) Disregarding APS, NAPS, allied with BAs salary advantages, will still be the best deal available in British aviation.
3) Pension rights gained to date are unchanged. It is only the future accrual rate which changes, along with the move of the retirement age to 60 ( something which many pilots , other than those wanting a 5 year "afterlife" stint with SQ etc ,have been wanting for years).
4) Neither the City nor the Government would lift a finger to save BA if it went under. Financially short haul has never been better than marginal and the profitable long haul has been starved of investment in additional aircraft for the past 5 years.
5) A restructured BA would probably look much like a new BOAC and shorthaul would either be abandoned or franchised. Other operators (UK and EU) would quickly take on the better routes at lower costs. There would be no need for them to buy short haul from BA,- they would just let it collapse and then move in.
6) The opportunities for displaced BA pilots after after a corporately terminal strike would not look rosy. They would of course lose their seniority and would be at the back of the queue for jobs with whoever took over the routes. Many would have to start again as turboprop F/Os with regionals or as contractors for overseas operators. Careers would be over.
7) A strike in anger may give a temporary surge of adrenalin, but it would risk far more than any likely gain. If BA went under, far more would be lost in future pension rights and payments for all existing and retired staff than would be gained by accepting the current offer, give or take the odd tweak to the detail.

The reality is that this is a time for cool heads and some serious thinking about the shape of the world , the need for management, unions and staff to take a new look at BA as if it were starting in business afresh and design a new future. Strikes have never saved a business or industry,- just hastened its demise. There is no perfect company and overall BA is a pretty good one. For its own people to destroy it would be absolute folly which they would regret for years to come.

[Human Factor]

For its own people to destroy it would be absolute folly which they would regret for years to come.

I'd have more regrets about doing nothing and working for a bunch of thieves. You seem to be deliberately avoiding the point that they can afford to pay the pension as it is. Why?

[Hand Solo]

Heres an alternative way of looking at your facts:
1) This is deal is poor if you have short time left in BA, it's eve worse than a career average scheme if you have a long time left.

2) NAPS, frozen at todays levels of acrual, allied with 10 years stagnation of seniority, is not the best deal in British aviation.

3) Future accrual rates in real terms will be poor thanks to the 2.5% cap on pensionable pay rises. The retirement age will inevitably rise to 65, not 60.

4) The 'we need new aircraft' mantra doesn't wash. We don't need new aircraft. Even the oldest 747s aren't due for replacement for another 5 years.

5) The current and last CEOs have ruled out your model for a restructured BA. I think they know the business better than you. BA short haul collapse = loss of 30% of long haul pax who transfer through LHR. It also means loss of an awful lot of slots at LHR to other operators, despite the acquisition of LHR slots being a stated strategic objective of the board.

6) What world do you live in? Have you not seen the huge shortage of experienced jet pilots? Where do you think these newcomer airlines are going to find 600 experienced A320 pilots at short notice along with sufficient TREs? You sound distinctly managerial in your prophecy of doom outside the company. You also assume people are only too willing to jump ship from their existing bases for the prospect of a new FO position at the UKs most overcrowded airfield slap bang in the middle of the UKs most overheated housing market.

7) A strike in anger will show BA they've pushed us too far this time. If these proposals go through then my NAPS pension won't be worth the paper the contract is written on. Walsh won't push BA to bankruptcy, he can't afford to.

[ShortfinalFred]

Sorry Skylion, but your post is disingenuous at best. Other companies have made significantly greater strides to covering their pensions deficit and this "proposal" remains totally unacceptable both to the Pilots AND all other groups of staff, notwithstanding the fact that it is skewed against flightcrew by seeking TEN more years work for a pension that will be significantly reduced as against two more years for groundstaff.

The reduction in inflation protection and capping any future payrises forevermore at RPI will allow inflation to erode the true value of any pension benefit to a negligable level within a very short period, such that the pension will become all but worthless. We ALL know this, AND we know that WW and a handful of acolytes will enrich themselves in the process of our losing any hope of retirement. Other companies have admitted that pensions are quite simply deferred pay - not one of us will accept the circa 30% to 40 % pay cut that this represents, and it would be organisational suicide for BALPA to do so.

This may well be the opening shot in a long campaign, however BA had better make a substantial improvement in its offer to the flightcrew, if not the whole company, and it knows it.

Interesting research note from a city banking house suggesting Ry@nair may have to park new aircraft due to a lack of experienced pilots, particularly Captains. Having been on the receiving end of numerous "initiatives" to save costs whilst the rest of BA merrily quaff capuccinos at Waterside I think you will find pilots unlikely to offer yet more concessions. Equally, if BA "melts down" I dont think the outcome will be as bleak for many as you paint (good propaganda job though - sure you are'nt a manager?). Pilots are needed and there is a growing shortage of [I][B]experienced[B][I] people. Not a time to quietly accept the end of our financial futures in order to enrich Mr W@lsh and a few cronies who will soon leave BA anyway.

[sugden]

WW bonus is more than just operating margin, so get over that particular piece of incorrect information. Skylion, I admire your cool-headed approach. A pragmatic approach may wring further concession from BA without the letting of blood.


Beaver Eager, if you think this is EXACTLY about WW getting a fat bonus at your expense your so far off beam it's not true. All the big public companies are closing and re-basing their pensions.

Human Factor, as I understand it, they can't afford to pay the pensions. That is what the deficit is all about; the assets in the fund will not meet the liabilities.

I am strongly of the view that a BA collapse will have serious repercussions for BA pilots, especially those in the short haul game. Sure, past CEOs have said they don't want to close it. It does bring in passengers and the cost of closure (redundancies, aircaft leases etc) is large. If the company collapses, however, because the pilots refuse to fly, many of those liabilties don't stand. BA2 arises, takes the good bits and cans the bad bits. Leave many of the marginal short-haul routes to the LCCs and concentrate on the really important feeder traffic (UK and euro capitals only). So a lot of you will be out of work. And not all the routes will be taken straight away. Skylion is right; other airlines will think twice before hiring short-sighted, hot-headed folks who drove their company into the ground. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, huh?

Hand Solo, you are right, Walsh will not push BA to bankruptcy. You will, by the sounds of things, and who's going to lose more then?

Be cool, not emotional. There's too much revolutionary fervour going on here, too much personalisation of the debate based on a pre-conceived notion of what WW represents. Not enough rationalisation of this in the context of the broader business landscape. Why do I care? I don't, really. I am not BA. I do have sympathy for the situation you are in. If you want to minimise your loses, however, the barricades approach ain't gonna work.

[Human Factor]

Human Factor, as I understand it, they can't afford to pay the pensions. That is what the deficit is all about; the assets in the fund will not meet the liabilities.

I presume you didn't see the presentation that many of us got to see.

By the way, it's not a liability. It's a provision. There's a vast difference as any decent accountant should be able to tell you.

[Hand Solo]

the assets in the fund will not meet the liabilities.

and as the full impact of Sept 1tth 2001 struck home the assets in the company couldn't meet the debt to the banks, yet here we are still. Thats because the debts to the bank didn't have to be paid off immediately in a single lump sum and neither does the pension.

concentrate on the really important feeder traffic (UK and euro capitals only).

So which of these route pairs do you think brings in most money: Rome or Milan? Frankfurt or Berlin? BA operate very few marginal short haul routes from LHR, they send those to LGW. LHR routes stand or fall on their own performance. If they don't perform we don't fly there. The slot could be used more profitably elsewhere.

other airlines will think twice before hiring short-sighted, hot-headed folks who drove their company into the ground.

Yep, when you need 300 experienced A320 pilots in a hurry you can afford to be choosy. Plus you'll have time to personally grill each candidate on their views on the downfall of BA and their part in it. Assuming they'll all be honest with you.

[JW411]

We were short of pilots when SABENA went bust. I told my boss that all our problems were over. He told me that he would never consider hiring a SABENA pilot for at least two years for it would take them that long to get hungry.

We didn't and we trained ab-initios in preference and it was a great success.

Get ready to spend at least two years on the ground guys if you really do decide to destroy yourselves.