BA pilots 'prepared to strike'?
Controversial, moi?
WWW shows his location as 'Out of the loop'. Funny how every time he posts he reinforces that position.
I will wait for the publication of the facts but if anybody truly believes that BASSA were the last remaining bulwark against BA management read this wonderful piece of illiterate half-truth designed to engender more support for their present ballot.
I spoke to a stewardess on my last trip and asked what her position was. She replied 'Oh yes, I voted for a strike'. I then asked if she would actually go on strike. The reply? 'Oh no, I have just bought a house and can't afford to'!
Similar to another cabin crew member who thought BASSA would pay her salary if they went on strike.
BASSA are being disingenuous about their position on the pension negotiations and their communications leading up to this strike ballot have been abysmal in that they are strong on rhetoric and short on facts.
If they attempt to strike they will come of worst.
Frankly, many of us would like to see them brought down a peg or two.
I will wait for the publication of the facts but if anybody truly believes that BASSA were the last remaining bulwark against BA management read this wonderful piece of illiterate half-truth designed to engender more support for their present ballot.
BASSA EMAIL UPDATE: BASSA UPDATE
BA PENSION IMPOSITION
Friday 5th January 2007 20.00hrs
All BASSA reps were derostered for today's meeting with the T&G's Deputy General Secretary Jack Dromey and Steve Hart Regional Secretary on their report back on any movement from BA on our current impasse with BA on our 12 points, one of which we might add is pensions.
Interestingly, at the same time that this meeting was going on, BA had organised a pensions meeting with the rest of the TUs in Waterside to try and reach a solution on the way forward over the NAPS pension deficit, knowing full well that BASSA could not attend, as they were locked away in talks some 15 miles away.
We received a telephone call from T&G sources, indicating a 'final' position from BA had been received in our absence and that we would have to agree today or not at all.
As this so called 'final offer' was so very detailed, we agreed to take all the information away and dedicate a full day next Friday 12th January to discuss it fully with the T&G Financial Director who has agreed to give up his day, to devote the necessary time and expertise to help us fully understand the financially technical part of the company proposal. We will NOT agree, or indeed disagree with anything until we fully understand it, you would expect nothing less.
BA subsequently has indicated that without full agreement from all the TUs they will impose their solution to the Trustees on Tuesday. That agreement they sought was not reached.
So our fears have been realised BA has imposed a deal BASSA have hardly had view of, for what reason, so they can line their own pockets with bonuses?
All your reps will wait for your voice through the ballot and will act accordingly with your wishes and we all stand committed with one more aggressive act from a management, who have no right to be in the people business.
BA PENSION IMPOSITION
Friday 5th January 2007 20.00hrs
All BASSA reps were derostered for today's meeting with the T&G's Deputy General Secretary Jack Dromey and Steve Hart Regional Secretary on their report back on any movement from BA on our current impasse with BA on our 12 points, one of which we might add is pensions.
Interestingly, at the same time that this meeting was going on, BA had organised a pensions meeting with the rest of the TUs in Waterside to try and reach a solution on the way forward over the NAPS pension deficit, knowing full well that BASSA could not attend, as they were locked away in talks some 15 miles away.
We received a telephone call from T&G sources, indicating a 'final' position from BA had been received in our absence and that we would have to agree today or not at all.
As this so called 'final offer' was so very detailed, we agreed to take all the information away and dedicate a full day next Friday 12th January to discuss it fully with the T&G Financial Director who has agreed to give up his day, to devote the necessary time and expertise to help us fully understand the financially technical part of the company proposal. We will NOT agree, or indeed disagree with anything until we fully understand it, you would expect nothing less.
BA subsequently has indicated that without full agreement from all the TUs they will impose their solution to the Trustees on Tuesday. That agreement they sought was not reached.
So our fears have been realised BA has imposed a deal BASSA have hardly had view of, for what reason, so they can line their own pockets with bonuses?
All your reps will wait for your voice through the ballot and will act accordingly with your wishes and we all stand committed with one more aggressive act from a management, who have no right to be in the people business.
Similar to another cabin crew member who thought BASSA would pay her salary if they went on strike.
BASSA are being disingenuous about their position on the pension negotiations and their communications leading up to this strike ballot have been abysmal in that they are strong on rhetoric and short on facts.
If they attempt to strike they will come of worst.
Frankly, many of us would like to see them brought down a peg or two.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Copied with permission from elsewhere (the author is welcome to contact me via the BALPA site if he'd rather I remove it from this specific site and I will do so):
MYTH1: BA set up the pension meeting yesterday knowing BASSA could not be in attendance.
FACT1: The pension meeting was adjourned for over 2hours in order to give BASSA time to make an appearance, which they did about 4pm. Their main union officer(T&G) was there all day and he couldn't get a response from them by telephone. Almost 40% of the pension meetings never had a BASSA Rep in attendance anyway. BASSA was not there yesterday because the resolve of their members for IA is weak enough without resolving the pensions issue. They didn't want a pensions deal yesterday and asked if we could delay the decision 1 week. This was not possible as BA were meeting the trustees tuesday and any offer can't sit indefinately on the table. BA wouldn't be able to commit to the offer past next Friday as BASSA would have their ballot results by then and the whole situation for BA could be vastly different (they might be facing a strike and have to freeze the offer).
MYTH2: Each of the other three unions acknowledged at the meeting that their own improvements had only been achieved through the resolve shown by BASSA. The deal currently on the table is there purely because of BASSA's strength. Because of your strength and because you are telling anyone that will listen that you are not happy and that you aren't going to be walked over.
FACT2: BASSA was at the beginning of the pensions debate being sold down the river(accepting NRA65) by their own larger union(T&G) who seemed more concerned by the majority of their ground staff. BASSA was not even present at these meetings. When it was leaked to BASSA what was transpiring, they suddenly turned up at the next meeting, they adjourned to a separate room for 2 hours and obviously a battle with the T&G ensued. They then decided to represent their own position and that was "we are in line with BALPA's proposal" as they were at this point starting from scratch with no research or knowledge. From that point forward BALPA carried BASSA(it was in our own interests as well to do so, for legal and other reasons). Eventually pressure was brought to bear and the whole of the T&G agreed with basically BALPA's proposal. I am still not convinced BASSA to this day even understand the basics on pensions, let alone be in a position to negotiate on them. MC knows first hand BALPA saved their bacon on pensions, despite what they know feel necessary to release. It was acknowledged yesterday though how well BALPA had done for it's members and this had some unions scratching their heads how this had come to pass.
MYTH3: Amcus and BALPA received an additional £9m/yr yesterday in order to sign an agreement that sells its members down the river.
FACT3: The £9m is BALPA's and BALPA's alone. It will become apparent how this £9m came about on Monday, it is part of £15m/yr savings that BA were going to claw back from AIRCREW(flight crew and CC only, not groundstaff) after the initial 5year transition period in BA's proposals was ended(BA's contribution were going to drop from £280m/yr to £265m/yr as spotted by our experts). Of the £15m/yr, £9m/yr was attributed to flight crew and £6m/yr was attributed to cabin crew. BALPA managed to secure these funds and have them allocated directly back to the groups where the money was being robbed from in the first place. Without BALPA's efforts, BASSA would never have seen sight of the £6m/yr which will be distributed to BASSA and CC89(Amicus) Cabin crew. Although unlike BALPA who had a set plan months ago, cabin crew have no idea on how to use the money, if they ever get it now with their actions of late.
MYTH4: Two of the 4 other unions have agreed so this will be imposed on BASSA and GMB.
FACT4: The T&G had to abstain from the vote due to BASSA's politiking. BASSA's stance had nothing to do with the deal itself(in fact they didn't even want to hear what the improved deal even was), and more to do with their 14-point(?) strike ballot and divergent membership. BA are going to give us time to ballot our members, and BASSA are only grandstanding. If the time comes to sign with trustees and BASSA continue to play games it is likely that BA will impose the changes. After all BASSA had very little imput to the negotiations in the first place other than we accept BALPA's proposal.
BASSA have some serious divisions. More than half their members are on the new pay scales which are capped at PP7 until they get a promotion, and some are now on PP7. Promotion is highly unlikely given the increased retirement age laws and the fact BA also want to remove CSD's off SH and a purser off LH at the same time. If unification of pay scales is going to happen, it will be a resut of the old pay scales suffering, not the old scales moving up. But this is the prime motive of their XX-point issues ballot.
FACT1: The pension meeting was adjourned for over 2hours in order to give BASSA time to make an appearance, which they did about 4pm. Their main union officer(T&G) was there all day and he couldn't get a response from them by telephone. Almost 40% of the pension meetings never had a BASSA Rep in attendance anyway. BASSA was not there yesterday because the resolve of their members for IA is weak enough without resolving the pensions issue. They didn't want a pensions deal yesterday and asked if we could delay the decision 1 week. This was not possible as BA were meeting the trustees tuesday and any offer can't sit indefinately on the table. BA wouldn't be able to commit to the offer past next Friday as BASSA would have their ballot results by then and the whole situation for BA could be vastly different (they might be facing a strike and have to freeze the offer).
MYTH2: Each of the other three unions acknowledged at the meeting that their own improvements had only been achieved through the resolve shown by BASSA. The deal currently on the table is there purely because of BASSA's strength. Because of your strength and because you are telling anyone that will listen that you are not happy and that you aren't going to be walked over.
FACT2: BASSA was at the beginning of the pensions debate being sold down the river(accepting NRA65) by their own larger union(T&G) who seemed more concerned by the majority of their ground staff. BASSA was not even present at these meetings. When it was leaked to BASSA what was transpiring, they suddenly turned up at the next meeting, they adjourned to a separate room for 2 hours and obviously a battle with the T&G ensued. They then decided to represent their own position and that was "we are in line with BALPA's proposal" as they were at this point starting from scratch with no research or knowledge. From that point forward BALPA carried BASSA(it was in our own interests as well to do so, for legal and other reasons). Eventually pressure was brought to bear and the whole of the T&G agreed with basically BALPA's proposal. I am still not convinced BASSA to this day even understand the basics on pensions, let alone be in a position to negotiate on them. MC knows first hand BALPA saved their bacon on pensions, despite what they know feel necessary to release. It was acknowledged yesterday though how well BALPA had done for it's members and this had some unions scratching their heads how this had come to pass.
MYTH3: Amcus and BALPA received an additional £9m/yr yesterday in order to sign an agreement that sells its members down the river.
FACT3: The £9m is BALPA's and BALPA's alone. It will become apparent how this £9m came about on Monday, it is part of £15m/yr savings that BA were going to claw back from AIRCREW(flight crew and CC only, not groundstaff) after the initial 5year transition period in BA's proposals was ended(BA's contribution were going to drop from £280m/yr to £265m/yr as spotted by our experts). Of the £15m/yr, £9m/yr was attributed to flight crew and £6m/yr was attributed to cabin crew. BALPA managed to secure these funds and have them allocated directly back to the groups where the money was being robbed from in the first place. Without BALPA's efforts, BASSA would never have seen sight of the £6m/yr which will be distributed to BASSA and CC89(Amicus) Cabin crew. Although unlike BALPA who had a set plan months ago, cabin crew have no idea on how to use the money, if they ever get it now with their actions of late.
MYTH4: Two of the 4 other unions have agreed so this will be imposed on BASSA and GMB.
FACT4: The T&G had to abstain from the vote due to BASSA's politiking. BASSA's stance had nothing to do with the deal itself(in fact they didn't even want to hear what the improved deal even was), and more to do with their 14-point(?) strike ballot and divergent membership. BA are going to give us time to ballot our members, and BASSA are only grandstanding. If the time comes to sign with trustees and BASSA continue to play games it is likely that BA will impose the changes. After all BASSA had very little imput to the negotiations in the first place other than we accept BALPA's proposal.
BASSA have some serious divisions. More than half their members are on the new pay scales which are capped at PP7 until they get a promotion, and some are now on PP7. Promotion is highly unlikely given the increased retirement age laws and the fact BA also want to remove CSD's off SH and a purser off LH at the same time. If unification of pay scales is going to happen, it will be a resut of the old pay scales suffering, not the old scales moving up. But this is the prime motive of their XX-point issues ballot.
Last edited by Human Factor; 6th Jan 2007 at 17:08.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Out of the loop
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA pension problem
You BALPA guys are at the T and G and BASSA throats now. No wonder W. Walsh was not afraid of the BALPA strike threat.
The F.Times today gave most of the details away probably due to a leak somewere.
The OFFER is hardly any better than the one BA offered you several weeks ago and has been on the Company Website for ages.
The problem is you have oversold what you could get for the BALPA membership and now you are going to have to backpeddle like mad... and some of you seem to be prepared to blame everybody else for your failure on the crucial points.
That is :
1. The payments be affordable.... 20%+ increase in members contributions IS THAT AFFORDABLE??????
2. That the RPI cap on annual pensionable pay rises which would reduce pensionable pay to half normal pay in 12 years or so.... (if the earnings RPI gap continued to be about 2 to 3 % a year as at the present time).....
........Be removed from the BA offer??????
(If the current accepted deal was applied to today's rates for those that are late members of NAPS....... final salary pensionable pay would be about £60000 and a pension using the new calculator about £35000 a year with a pension RPI increase capped at 2.5% a year.) ..RPI is currently just under 4%
If BALPA has removed these major obstacles then it has succeeded in what it had previously stated was an esssential part of any solution.
The problem is that it has failed on both counts and the details of the failure will be known to all on Monday.
Balpa set the height of the bar itself at general members meetings and it has failed to reach it.
The membership will be very upset by this poor deal that has been accepted by the Union.
The F.Times today gave most of the details away probably due to a leak somewere.
The OFFER is hardly any better than the one BA offered you several weeks ago and has been on the Company Website for ages.
The problem is you have oversold what you could get for the BALPA membership and now you are going to have to backpeddle like mad... and some of you seem to be prepared to blame everybody else for your failure on the crucial points.
That is :
1. The payments be affordable.... 20%+ increase in members contributions IS THAT AFFORDABLE??????
2. That the RPI cap on annual pensionable pay rises which would reduce pensionable pay to half normal pay in 12 years or so.... (if the earnings RPI gap continued to be about 2 to 3 % a year as at the present time).....
........Be removed from the BA offer??????
(If the current accepted deal was applied to today's rates for those that are late members of NAPS....... final salary pensionable pay would be about £60000 and a pension using the new calculator about £35000 a year with a pension RPI increase capped at 2.5% a year.) ..RPI is currently just under 4%
If BALPA has removed these major obstacles then it has succeeded in what it had previously stated was an esssential part of any solution.
The problem is that it has failed on both counts and the details of the failure will be known to all on Monday.
Balpa set the height of the bar itself at general members meetings and it has failed to reach it.
The membership will be very upset by this poor deal that has been accepted by the Union.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FT story:
BA maps out its pensions flightplan
By Kevin Done,Aerospace Correspondent
Published: January 5 2007 23:41 | Last updated: January 5 2007 23:41
British Airways has agreed a further major increase in its annual pension contributions to secure the backing of its trades unions in a breakthrough deal last night.
It is making a one-off cash contribution of £800m, subject to fund members also accepting reductions in pensions benefits, and has agreed to make annual contributions of £280m a year, up from the £272m proposed in November.
It has been forced to move a long way in negotiations; first with its pension fund trustees and then in talks with the unions from its first proposals tabled early last year, when it put forward a one-off cash injection of £500m and annual contributions of £235m. BA will also pay an additional £50m a year for the next three years depending on the group’s financial performance.
The £800m injection will be paid out of the group’s cash balances, which totalled £2.6bn at the end of September. The three annual payments of £50m will be paid as long as BA’s year-end cash balances are above £1.8bn.
The £800m will be paid in two tranches, £250m this month and £550m in April in order to secure the maximum tax benefits. The £800m payment will be tax-deductible and will have a net cost for BA of £560m.
The deal will involve employees contributing a one-off saving of £400m by agreeing to a 2.5 per cent cap on future pensionable pay increases, which, together with the cash injection, will reduce the actuarial deficit from the current £2.1bn to £900m.
The remaining deficit is due to be eliminated during the next 10 years through increased company contributions and changes to benefits, which include a higher retirement age and a lower cap on annual increases in pensions.
Previously, the proposals have centred on staff accepting cuts in future benefits, including an increase in the normal retirement age of 10 years for pilots and cabin crew from 55 to 65 and from 60 to 65 for ground staff.
The main pension fund will remain a final salary defined benefit scheme for existing members, but the scheme was closed to new members in 2003.
Last night the Transport and General Workers Union said that BA’s four main unions had agreed to recommend “changes to future benefits” to secure the cash contributions from BA. The changes would provide “a choice of benefits at differing levels of contributions”.
and:
BA in pensions deal with unions
By Kevin Done, Aerospace Correspondent
Published: January 5 2007 23:24 | Last updated: January 5 2007 23:24
British Airways reached agreement on Friday night with its four main trade unions on a package of reforms to eliminate the £2.1bn deficit in its pension fund over the next decade.
The deal, which will be recommended by the unions in a ballot by the workforce, ends 16 months of negotiations and lifts the threat of industrial action against the airline over the controversial changes in pensions terms and conditions.
BA will make a one-off cash contribution of £800m, subject to fund members also accepting reductions in pensions benefits, and has agreed to make annual contributions of £280m a year.
The agreement is expected to lead to a review by rating agencies of BA’s credit status and could pave the way to the airline regaining an investment-grade rating. Its bonds were relegated to junk status in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, an event which contributed to the global airline industry’s prolonged financial crisis.
A resolution of the pensions issue will also clear the way for BA finally to embark on a decade of heavy investment in the renewal and expansion of its long-haul fleet with capital expenditure of more than $10bn (£5.2bn).
Ironically, the breakthrough on pensions and the improvement in its financial status could leave BA more vulnerable to possible takeover.
The airline, already one of the most profitable network carriers, has been the subject of growing speculation as a target for private equity funds, which has been triggered by the recent acquistion of Qantas, the Australian flag-carrier, by a team of financial groups including Macquarie and Texas Pacific.
The BA share price has risen by about 75 per cent in the last 12 months. Collins Stewart, the UK stockbroker, said this week: “We strongly believe BA is a primary takeover target.”
The share price closed last night 4p higher at 548¾p, its highest for seven years.
BA has been burdened with the biggest pensions deficit of any group in the FTSE 100 index of leading companies relative to its market capitalisation. Resolving the pensions issue has posed one of the biggest challenges to Willie Walsh since he took over as chief executive of the airline at the end of September 2005.
Mr Walsh last night hailed the deal wth the unions as “great news” and said: “[It] effectively tackles one of the most fundamental issues we face.”
By reaching agreement with the pension fund trustees and the trades unions, BA had found “a shared solution” that had helped to secure the pensions of the 33,794 active members in the group’s New Airways Pension Scheme (Naps) and had removed “a major blocker to future investment in British Airways,” said Mr Walsh.
BA still faces big labour challenges, however, including the result of a ballot, due next Friday, by cabin crew on taking industrial action over controversial changes to working practices.
BA maps out its pensions flightplan
By Kevin Done,Aerospace Correspondent
Published: January 5 2007 23:41 | Last updated: January 5 2007 23:41
British Airways has agreed a further major increase in its annual pension contributions to secure the backing of its trades unions in a breakthrough deal last night.
It is making a one-off cash contribution of £800m, subject to fund members also accepting reductions in pensions benefits, and has agreed to make annual contributions of £280m a year, up from the £272m proposed in November.
It has been forced to move a long way in negotiations; first with its pension fund trustees and then in talks with the unions from its first proposals tabled early last year, when it put forward a one-off cash injection of £500m and annual contributions of £235m. BA will also pay an additional £50m a year for the next three years depending on the group’s financial performance.
The £800m injection will be paid out of the group’s cash balances, which totalled £2.6bn at the end of September. The three annual payments of £50m will be paid as long as BA’s year-end cash balances are above £1.8bn.
The £800m will be paid in two tranches, £250m this month and £550m in April in order to secure the maximum tax benefits. The £800m payment will be tax-deductible and will have a net cost for BA of £560m.
The deal will involve employees contributing a one-off saving of £400m by agreeing to a 2.5 per cent cap on future pensionable pay increases, which, together with the cash injection, will reduce the actuarial deficit from the current £2.1bn to £900m.
The remaining deficit is due to be eliminated during the next 10 years through increased company contributions and changes to benefits, which include a higher retirement age and a lower cap on annual increases in pensions.
Previously, the proposals have centred on staff accepting cuts in future benefits, including an increase in the normal retirement age of 10 years for pilots and cabin crew from 55 to 65 and from 60 to 65 for ground staff.
The main pension fund will remain a final salary defined benefit scheme for existing members, but the scheme was closed to new members in 2003.
Last night the Transport and General Workers Union said that BA’s four main unions had agreed to recommend “changes to future benefits” to secure the cash contributions from BA. The changes would provide “a choice of benefits at differing levels of contributions”.
and:
BA in pensions deal with unions
By Kevin Done, Aerospace Correspondent
Published: January 5 2007 23:24 | Last updated: January 5 2007 23:24
British Airways reached agreement on Friday night with its four main trade unions on a package of reforms to eliminate the £2.1bn deficit in its pension fund over the next decade.
The deal, which will be recommended by the unions in a ballot by the workforce, ends 16 months of negotiations and lifts the threat of industrial action against the airline over the controversial changes in pensions terms and conditions.
BA will make a one-off cash contribution of £800m, subject to fund members also accepting reductions in pensions benefits, and has agreed to make annual contributions of £280m a year.
The agreement is expected to lead to a review by rating agencies of BA’s credit status and could pave the way to the airline regaining an investment-grade rating. Its bonds were relegated to junk status in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, an event which contributed to the global airline industry’s prolonged financial crisis.
A resolution of the pensions issue will also clear the way for BA finally to embark on a decade of heavy investment in the renewal and expansion of its long-haul fleet with capital expenditure of more than $10bn (£5.2bn).
Ironically, the breakthrough on pensions and the improvement in its financial status could leave BA more vulnerable to possible takeover.
The airline, already one of the most profitable network carriers, has been the subject of growing speculation as a target for private equity funds, which has been triggered by the recent acquistion of Qantas, the Australian flag-carrier, by a team of financial groups including Macquarie and Texas Pacific.
The BA share price has risen by about 75 per cent in the last 12 months. Collins Stewart, the UK stockbroker, said this week: “We strongly believe BA is a primary takeover target.”
The share price closed last night 4p higher at 548¾p, its highest for seven years.
BA has been burdened with the biggest pensions deficit of any group in the FTSE 100 index of leading companies relative to its market capitalisation. Resolving the pensions issue has posed one of the biggest challenges to Willie Walsh since he took over as chief executive of the airline at the end of September 2005.
Mr Walsh last night hailed the deal wth the unions as “great news” and said: “[It] effectively tackles one of the most fundamental issues we face.”
By reaching agreement with the pension fund trustees and the trades unions, BA had found “a shared solution” that had helped to secure the pensions of the 33,794 active members in the group’s New Airways Pension Scheme (Naps) and had removed “a major blocker to future investment in British Airways,” said Mr Walsh.
BA still faces big labour challenges, however, including the result of a ballot, due next Friday, by cabin crew on taking industrial action over controversial changes to working practices.
this whole thread is largely irrelevant if BA has no customers to fly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6227187.stm
absolutely
useless.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6227187.stm
absolutely
useless.
I am glad to say that Lucifer's story from the FT has some MAJOR loads of tosh in it. I have just downloaded the initial info from both BALPA and BA and 'thankfully' the proposed LPI of only 2.5% has been dropped and remains at 5%.
The BALPA Pensions team have done a sterling job against a bunch of thoroughly deceitful and totally dishonest thieves - BA management. I for one will be voting in favour of the package. It is not ideal, but a lot better than it could have been.
The news that the REAL possibility of BA pilots taking IA will obviously upset some on this forum!! Some of the uninformed rubbish spouted on this thread has been quite appalling. It very much appears that some pilots really want the worst for others. Not so much 'happy landings', but 'go on screw up - and I can get your job'!!
The BALPA Pensions team have done a sterling job against a bunch of thoroughly deceitful and totally dishonest thieves - BA management. I for one will be voting in favour of the package. It is not ideal, but a lot better than it could have been.
The news that the REAL possibility of BA pilots taking IA will obviously upset some on this forum!! Some of the uninformed rubbish spouted on this thread has been quite appalling. It very much appears that some pilots really want the worst for others. Not so much 'happy landings', but 'go on screw up - and I can get your job'!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An awful lot to take in regarding the new proposals. Little of it good. (If one starts from the current scheme!) However.....
It is fantastic to report a very significant improvement for BARPers!
First suggestion is that BARP may genuinely become 'market leading'!
So any non BALPA BARPers out there, join up now, and discover the improvement!
It is fantastic to report a very significant improvement for BARPers!
First suggestion is that BARP may genuinely become 'market leading'!
So any non BALPA BARPers out there, join up now, and discover the improvement!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More media reports (unlinkable):
Headline : British Airways union disputes BA's claim that negotiations have concluded; BA denies approaching Goldman Sachs regarding potential takeover defence
Main body : British Airways (BA), the UK-listed airline, claimed to have reached agreement with unions over its pension deficit, although unions disputed the claim, The Times reported. BA said yesterday (8 January) that it had 'concluded' talks regarding its GBP 2.1bn (EUR 3.1bn) pension scheme deficit, the report said.
Balpa, the union representing BA pilots, said in the report that BA's assertion that it had reached agreement with unions was 'totally untrue.' Discussions between BA and BA Forum, an employee organisation comprising representatives of Balpa and the Transport & General Workers Union and Amicus, ended Friday (5 January), the report noted.
A Financial Times report detailed BA's announcement yesterday, in which the company said that it had agreed an increase in its contributions to the scheme in exchange for agreement on measures to eliminate the deficit over the next decade. The item also noted that some union officials said BA's statement was premature.
The Financial Times report quoted GMB union representative, Gary Pearce, who said in an AFX report that BA's final offer would be presented at a union meeting on Friday (12 January). The union would decide whether to back the agreement at the meeting on Friday, Pearce added.
Separately, a Daily Telegraph report quoted BA chief financial officer Keith Williams, who downplayed talks that the company might now be in play for a takeover after reaching agreement on the pension scheme. Williams also denied market speculation that the group had sounded out Goldman Sachs regarding the US-based investment bank joining its advisory team of Merrill Lynch and UBS in anticipation of mounting a bid defence.
A separate report in the Financial Times carried analysts' mixed opinions regarding the potential for a takeover bid for BA. An analyst at Collins Stewart yesterday tipped BA as a likely bid target, citing its agreement on the pension scheme. Based on valuation multiples being applied to Qantas, the Australian airline, the analyst mooted an 800p per share take-out price for BA.
Other analysts quoted in the Financial Times report and the Daily Telegraph report were dismissive of the prospects of a bid for BA. Both reports quoted an analyst at JPMorgan, who said yesterday that BA cannot be compared to Qantas, which is at an earlier stage in the profits curve than BA, which is reaching a peak in its profit cycle. Therefore, there is less chance for upside with BA, the analyst explained. British Airways' market capitalisation stands at GBP 6.25bn (EUR 9.31bn).
Source : The Times (London), Financial Times, Daily Telegraph
Headline : British Airways union disputes BA's claim that negotiations have concluded; BA denies approaching Goldman Sachs regarding potential takeover defence
Main body : British Airways (BA), the UK-listed airline, claimed to have reached agreement with unions over its pension deficit, although unions disputed the claim, The Times reported. BA said yesterday (8 January) that it had 'concluded' talks regarding its GBP 2.1bn (EUR 3.1bn) pension scheme deficit, the report said.
Balpa, the union representing BA pilots, said in the report that BA's assertion that it had reached agreement with unions was 'totally untrue.' Discussions between BA and BA Forum, an employee organisation comprising representatives of Balpa and the Transport & General Workers Union and Amicus, ended Friday (5 January), the report noted.
A Financial Times report detailed BA's announcement yesterday, in which the company said that it had agreed an increase in its contributions to the scheme in exchange for agreement on measures to eliminate the deficit over the next decade. The item also noted that some union officials said BA's statement was premature.
The Financial Times report quoted GMB union representative, Gary Pearce, who said in an AFX report that BA's final offer would be presented at a union meeting on Friday (12 January). The union would decide whether to back the agreement at the meeting on Friday, Pearce added.
Separately, a Daily Telegraph report quoted BA chief financial officer Keith Williams, who downplayed talks that the company might now be in play for a takeover after reaching agreement on the pension scheme. Williams also denied market speculation that the group had sounded out Goldman Sachs regarding the US-based investment bank joining its advisory team of Merrill Lynch and UBS in anticipation of mounting a bid defence.
A separate report in the Financial Times carried analysts' mixed opinions regarding the potential for a takeover bid for BA. An analyst at Collins Stewart yesterday tipped BA as a likely bid target, citing its agreement on the pension scheme. Based on valuation multiples being applied to Qantas, the Australian airline, the analyst mooted an 800p per share take-out price for BA.
Other analysts quoted in the Financial Times report and the Daily Telegraph report were dismissive of the prospects of a bid for BA. Both reports quoted an analyst at JPMorgan, who said yesterday that BA cannot be compared to Qantas, which is at an earlier stage in the profits curve than BA, which is reaching a peak in its profit cycle. Therefore, there is less chance for upside with BA, the analyst explained. British Airways' market capitalisation stands at GBP 6.25bn (EUR 9.31bn).
Source : The Times (London), Financial Times, Daily Telegraph
So, as usual another load of cobblers from BA. You should see the BA Intranet!
Nice to see that the Times has amended it's piece this morning to include a more reresentative view from the TU side. Even the Engineers got a mention! That can't be right.
Nice to see that the Times has amended it's piece this morning to include a more reresentative view from the TU side. Even the Engineers got a mention! That can't be right.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its the best deal we will get even (in the now unlikely) event of a strike.
Well done to Dave Kevin and Graeme.
Yesvote from me for massive damage limitation. The whingers have started on the BALPA forum though on the (unofficial) compare cost thread. I suggest that if they are unhappy (their right of course) and if the pension is now so crap that they gracefully move on from BA. Anyway one of them is a well known moaner (good at balancing on logs I'm told) and would moan if the deal came with gold on top.
Well done to Dave Kevin and Graeme.
Yesvote from me for massive damage limitation. The whingers have started on the BALPA forum though on the (unofficial) compare cost thread. I suggest that if they are unhappy (their right of course) and if the pension is now so crap that they gracefully move on from BA. Anyway one of them is a well known moaner (good at balancing on logs I'm told) and would moan if the deal came with gold on top.
Last edited by Sabre-Rattler; 9th Jan 2007 at 16:06.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A GOOD PLACE TO FLY, DRINK, **** AND SLEEP.
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gold on top?? No chance. Just a slightly less thinly disguised sh@fting.
Moan.....
Moan.....
Last edited by JackOffallTrades; 9th Jan 2007 at 17:19. Reason: To include a good moan.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Out of the loop
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA pension problem
Still it is basically the same deal as before apart from
1. an improvement to BARP .
2. An improvement to the RPI protection of the pension to 5% from the proposed 2.5%. These are good BUT.......
The rest is basically the same as before, the main problem is the max of RPI increases to pensionable pay. Over 20 years or so that wiill increase the gap between actual pay and pensionable pay to 50% from the 20% it is today not a good deal for copilots and junior captains and this was originally unacceptable to BALPA. However true to form they have accepted a bad deal for the juniors to protect the seniors. As I said before, par for the course.
However I am sure it will get the votes from the members and the BA pilot T and Cs will fall again lower.
1. an improvement to BARP .
2. An improvement to the RPI protection of the pension to 5% from the proposed 2.5%. These are good BUT.......
The rest is basically the same as before, the main problem is the max of RPI increases to pensionable pay. Over 20 years or so that wiill increase the gap between actual pay and pensionable pay to 50% from the 20% it is today not a good deal for copilots and junior captains and this was originally unacceptable to BALPA. However true to form they have accepted a bad deal for the juniors to protect the seniors. As I said before, par for the course.
However I am sure it will get the votes from the members and the BA pilot T and Cs will fall again lower.
Last edited by WhoopWhoop Whoops; 9th Jan 2007 at 21:26.
PPRuNe Person
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
true to form they have accepted a bad deal for the juniors to protect the seniors
But why let the facts interfere on a Rumour network, eh, Whoops?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overstress,
As you say, I'll also retire at 60 with a larger pension than if I'd retired at 55 on the old pension option.
Con:
i) I'll have to pay more to do this ie. larger monthly contributions and for an additional 5 years.
Pro:
i) The fund should be stable compared to the present situation.
ii) I can remain at BA until I retire at 60 instead of going to work for one of the low-cost airlines.
I'll be voting 'yes'.
As you say, I'll also retire at 60 with a larger pension than if I'd retired at 55 on the old pension option.
Con:
i) I'll have to pay more to do this ie. larger monthly contributions and for an additional 5 years.
Pro:
i) The fund should be stable compared to the present situation.
ii) I can remain at BA until I retire at 60 instead of going to work for one of the low-cost airlines.
I'll be voting 'yes'.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like this can only get better, retire at 65,70,75 etc etc
.
Con, staff pay more in and get less out.
.
Pro, company makes more money and can allow the managers to leave nice and early with large chunks of cash.
.
Con, staff pay more in and get less out.
.
Pro, company makes more money and can allow the managers to leave nice and early with large chunks of cash.