BA pilots 'prepared to strike'?

[yachtno1]

Carnage Matey.. you know very well that an average of your expenses were incorporated into your "Basic Pay" a few years back.

[sky9]

Interestingly their share price has gone up from 330'ish to 550'ish in the same 12 months.

[merlinxx]

BARP

Understand what you folks are talking about, I only spent 7 years with the Corp. Lets just hope this doesn't lead to another Papa India type situ!!!!

[overstress]

you were always going to take the first best offer on the table

As CM says, totally wrong, this is the final offer of several which contains some very cunning work by our reps. If the current BACC recommends acceptance, that's good enough for me.

I started this thread to help put pressure on BA in some small way. I've tried to keep it on page one all this time. Thanks to my BA colleagues on here for posting far more eloquently than me and all of you for contributing.

On final acceptance by the members (if that happens!) I may well delete the thread (if that option still exists!)

One sad thing for me, reading some of the vitriol that has been posted, it seems that there are many pilots who would denigrate BA and our T's & C's, but who would not hesitate to jump into our shoes given half the chance.

Well guys, you're welcome to apply through the normal channels, and if successful, join the bottom of our seniority list, enjoying the industry leading BARP deal which has been negotiated - despite the doomsayers!

[Carnage Matey!]

Originally Posted by yachtno1

Carnage Matey.. you know very well that an average of your expenses were incorporated into your "Basic Pay" a few years back.

And you know very well that it cerainly wasn't an 'average' of allowances, it was much less than that, and it wasn't pensionable when it went into the basic.

[PaulW]

You are incorrect Carnage Matey, flight crew are not the only group of staff whose pensionable pay is 80% of basic pay. Youll find everyone else in NAPS has the same deal. I am in NAPS 1 and my pensionable pay is 80% of basic pay and Im an engineer.

[Classic]

Originally Posted by PaulW

You are incorrect Carnage Matey, flight crew are not the only group of staff whose pensionable pay is 80% of basic pay. Youll find everyone else in NAPS has the same deal. I am in NAPS 1 and my pensionable pay is 80% of basic pay and Im an engineer.

Everone is not on the same deal.
14000 cabin crew are not on 80% pensionable pay. All their basic is pensionable, I believe.

[PaulW]

I hadnt realised that cabin crew had a different deal to the rest of us. But in the defense of cabin crew, certainly post 97, new contract crew, the majority of their pay is duty pay; 100 percent of nine and half grand basic does not lead to the greatest pension in the world. Pre 97 crew have a much better deal but again the majority of their pay is variable non pensionable pay.

[Rimmer]

Paul W

I am with you and all the Nigel's here are trying to feel better about taking a bribe

Firstly the 80% of the Longhaul PP24 captains pay is practically 100% of a shorthaul captains basic, secondly when that goes to 95% the shorthaul captains will retire on more than they currently earn ( what a situation that is with a £2.1 Billion deficit to correct ), thirdly I presume BA will be getting rid of the abatement now then for all the members or giving me a 15% increase in my pensionable pay as well - yeah right.

[TURIN]

This is what I don't understand.

Surely the abatement rate is now going to be completely unconnected with (1.5 X) SERPS for NAPS1 staff. It will, from now on, be a variable percentage depending on pay rises. Does this mean that NAPS1 and NAPS2 abatement rates are going to be set in stone at the present rate until the next pay deal that is above rpi?


BTW Congratulations to BALPA for securing another fabulous deal for pilots. I just wish my own union had the balls to do the same for us engineers.

[Joetom]

CM, thanks for your reply......is the below about correct as an example.
.
............................................ground staff ....... flying staff
.
Pensionable pay now..................£40K.....................£40K.......... .......
.
Pensionable pay after changes.....£40K.....................£47.5K...............
.
I have played with these numbers for hours, but the results are always the same, appears as a general rule the flying staff seem to come out getting a 19% pay rise for pensionable purposes.
.
Please don't get me wrong, I think BALPA have done a super job for the flying staff, I just think it might be a little more fair if ground staff could be treated the same, I would guess if the company offered all staff the same deal, we could put all these pension problems behind us and get back to looking after the customers.!!!

[StiffLittleFingers]

Originally Posted by TURIN

This is what I don't understand.

Surely the abatement rate is now going to be completely unconnected with (1.5 X) SERPS for NAPS1 staff. It will, from now on, be a variable percentage depending on pay rises. Does this mean that NAPS1 and NAPS2 abatement rates are going to be set in stone at the present rate until the next pay deal that is above rpi?

TURIN,

No, No, NO! Abatement happens AFTER 'basic' pensionable pay has been worked out. The rules for NAPS 1 and NAPS 2 on abatement aren't being changed. So each year, your 'basic' pensionable pay will go up by the lower of RPI or your annual pay increase, and then will be reduced by the abatement amount - and the abatement amount depends on the level of state pension. This is true for ALL staff, not just flight crew or cabin crew. The only difference in the latest deal so far is that the 'basic' pensionable pay for flight crew will go up by about 18%.

[StiffLittleFingers]

Originally Posted by Joetom

=
Please don't get me wrong, I think BALPA have done a super job for the flying staff, I just think it might be a little more fair if ground staff could be treated the same, I would guess if the company offered all staff the same deal, we could put all these pension problems behind us and get back to looking after the customers.!!!

If ground staff were facing a ten-year increase in their retirement age, then maybe BA would have offered transition arrangements to them as well. The new arrangements put everyone on the same footing, but that means that flight crew and cabin crew are facing a MUCH bigger change - hence the original transition arrangements, and the latest proposals to replace them with an increase in pensionable pay.

Even if the same deal had been offered to all staff, GMB might have found something to ballot on. Or am I just being cynical?

[GS-Alpha]

For those of you targeting the 95% pensionable pay for pilots, can we look at the whole package please? For instance, engineers and ground crew, feel free to tell us how much of your pension you are going to lose if you retire at your current NRA rather than your new one?

I can tell you that with my NRA changing to 65, the pension that I will accrue between now and 55 (my current NRA), will be 62% of what I would have accrued with my current NAPS pension. This is the same for every single pilot in BA. We do have the option to pay extras and hence get a bigger pension, and the option I plan to take, will actually leave me accruing 80% of my current pension from now on. (But I am having to increase my contributions to do this and I have not yet costed the true ratio between extra cost and extra benefit, so I might not opt for this plan after all).

Anyway, without paying extras, the financial hit will be just under £16k per year for me. If any of you want to knock that much off your pensions, and join me, please feel free to do so!

BALPA have done a good job and managed to make it so that the percentage loss to pilots is closer to other workgroups. It does not matter what they have had to tweak to acheive this, you should not be comparing little bits and pieces. What matters is the final percentage loss, and I guarantee that you are not taking the kind of hit that many pilots are taking.

Please feel free to correct me if your pension losses are higher, but I doubt you will.

GS-Alpha.

[M.Mouse]

Firstly the 80% of the Longhaul PP24 captains pay is practically 100% of a shorthaul captains basic, secondly when that goes to 95% the shorthaul captains will retire on more than they currently earn ( what a situation that is with a £2.1 Billion deficit to correct ), thirdly I presume BA will be getting rid of the abatement now then for all the members or giving me a 15% increase in my pensionable pay as well - yeah right.

Rimmer

The pensionable pay figure is for calculating contributions from the employee into the fund and the figure used when calculating the pension. e.g Accrual rate of 1/52 for each year of service, say 35 years then the pension is 35/52 x 95% (LH PP24 - abatement). Plainly no pilots will retire on this basis on a figure greater than they were earning.

The abatement is applied to all NAPS pensions. The idea of reducing the pensionable pay is that this portion of pay is already pensioned through the Basic State Pension. So there is no need for the employee nor British Airways to pay pension contributions on this portion of pay.

People are focusing on the pensionable pay percentage as if the figure given for pensionable pay is what you actually retire on! It is not. It is the amount used in ALL calculations. As explained above the figure is used to calculate the retirement pension payable and also, and this is being missed, for calculating contributions. The accrual rates are being lowered and the % needing to be paid is going up.

For goodness sake, the whole exercise was an exercise in damage limitation, nobody is going to be better off on the basis of these changes. Younger pilots will have to work 10 years longer for what they would have earned pensionwise at age 55 before. Older pilots will be less affected.

The GMB and BASSA in particular are spinning this as if the pilots have walked off with a pot of gold at all other employees expense. That is not the case. If the GMB and BASSA believe that rejecting the proposal and threatening to strike will magic more money from the company well dream on. It is entirely possible that the Trustees and the pension regulator will impose a solution should acceptance be rejected. Then it will be seen how this proposal was clearly the best negotiated settlement available.

BASSA in particular are leading their members in collective suicide. The pitiful understanding of the facts of life over the pension alone, not helped by reams of half-truths and spin, is laughable if it wasn't going to lead to such disastrous consequences for their members.

[Rimmer]

GS Alpha

Quote "feel free to tell us how much of your pension you are going to lose if you retire at your current NRA rather than your new one?"


What your forgetting here is NAPs at present is very biased in your favour ( and could be said that fact alone means you have caused a far bigger part of the £2.1 Billion than I ), your saying that any future change has to take that into account, I say things are biased unfairly now and BAs original proposals were fairer than what's currently proposed.

Quote "BALPA have done a good job and managed to make it so that the percentage loss to pilots is closer to other workgroups."

Yes they have and therefore meaning I and the check in girls on 12K will have to effectively subsidise your pension by the continued bias.

M.Mouse

Your correct naturally as I forgot its 2/3 of the figure but the point I was making is at present the shorthaul Captains pensionable pay is NOT 80% of HIS salary its nearly 100% which is a far higher percentage currently than mine.

Abatement yes - 22% of basic pay reduced for my pension and I estimate 4-5% of yours.

Nobody is going to be better off I think all the staff knew that, they also suspected BA would try a sweetener to a certain group, they also knew who takes more from the scheme as a percentage relative to payments in caused by increments and promotions - they basically knew it was a biased scheme but happy so long as BA FUNDED IT!

Quote"The GMB and BASSA in particular are spinning this as if the pilots have walked off with a pot of gold at all other employees expense."

Well not exactly a pot of gold but otherwise correct!

Quote " It is entirely possible that the Trustees and the pension regulator will impose a solution should acceptance be rejected. Then it will be seen how this proposal was clearly the best negotiated settlement available."

Not really - the regulator will act based on available information and instruct the trustees to amend the scheme to remove the deficit considering equally the effect on employees collectively - i may well benifit from as things are now based on the information he and the trustees now have.

Quote "BASSA in particular are leading their members in collective suicide. The pitiful understanding of the facts of life over the pension alone, not helped by reams of half-truths and spin, is laughable if it wasn't going to lead to such disastrous consequences for their members."

Such as ? when you look at what a typical member will loose in retirement a few months out will be chicken feed, besides when your paid 12K a year if the company folds there's always McDonalds.

[Carnage Matey!]

Originally Posted by Rimmer

GS Alpha
What your forgetting here is NAPs at present is very biased in your favour ( and could be said that fact alone means you have caused a far bigger part of the £2.1 Billion than I )

You could say that, but you'd be wrong. The pilots take out the same proportion of the fund as they put in. Don't take my word for it, ask the trustees. You could equally say that ground based staff are responsible for the size of the deficit as their total share of the deficit is greater than that of the flying staff. It would be an equally nonsensical and irrelevant statement. People are due what it says on their contracts. Thats what BA agreed to pay. This is an exercise in clearing the deficit, not redistributing wealth.

your saying that any future change has to take that into account, I say things are biased unfairly now and BAs original proposals were fairer than what's currently proposed.

Again, this is an exercise in clearing the deficit, not redistributing wealth. On what fair basis should BA rob from one group to pay for another? Would you like it if the pilots pay package was funded from your salary? I doubt it. So why should the pilots pensions fund yours? There's no point claiming NAPS is biased towards pilots. BA agreed to pay it and thats all that matters. We also pay higher contributions than you and BA pay higher multiples of our contributions than they do for you. Its all part of the fact we get better remuneration and whether your like it or think its fair is, I'm afraid, irrelevant.

"BALPA have done a good job and managed to make it so that the percentage loss to pilots is closer to other workgroups."
Yes they have and therefore meaning I and the check in girls on 12K will have to effectively subsidise your pension by the continued bias.

Can you justify that claim, rather than making vague allegations of 'bias'?

Nobody is going to be better off I think all the staff knew that, they also suspected BA would try a sweetener to a certain group, they also knew who takes more from the scheme as a percentage relative to payments in caused by increments and promotions - they basically knew it was a biased scheme but happy so long as BA FUNDED IT!

Once again, ask the trustees if the pilots take more as a percentage from the scheme than they put instead of listening to your friendly neighbourhood manager (and we know which of your managers was spreading that rumour). The truth will disappoint you.

" It is entirely possible that the Trustees and the pension regulator will impose a solution should acceptance be rejected. Then it will be seen how this proposal was clearly the best negotiated settlement available."
Not really - the regulator will act based on available information and instruct the trustees to amend the scheme to remove the deficit considering equally the effect on employees collectively - i may well benifit from as things are now based on the information he and the trustees now have.

Not really indeed. So long as the trustees are satisfied with the proposals they can implement them without the regulator getting involved. The trustees primary concerns are the protection of the accrued benefits and clearing the deficit. Fairness is not their issue or they might well have rejected the plan to raise NRAs by different amounts. Your faith in the power, and even the desire of the regulator to intervene is misplaced.

"BASSA in particular are leading their members in collective suicide. The pitiful understanding of the facts of life over the pension alone, not helped by reams of half-truths and spin, is laughable if it wasn't going to lead to such disastrous consequences for their members."
Such as ?

Such as their recent claims that the other unions conspoired to hold the pensions meetings when BASSA couldn't make it it order to stitch them up. Naturally they claim BALPA orchestrated this and have launched a rather nasty character assasination attempt against the first BALPA rep who dared to counter their claims

[GS-Alpha]

Rimmer

Fortunately, Carnage Matey has saved me a load of typing.

I'd just like to echo that if you want the facts about how biased NAPS is or is not, ask the trustees. I know this is the rumour encouraged by BA, because everyone in BA seems to LOVE to HATE a PILOT. Give them a spark and they will light a fire to burn all pilots. Why are we so hated - jealousy. The thing I cannot understand though, is if you are so jealous, become a pilot!

[Throb@30wCPDLC]

Guys

The green eyed monster is still being fed!!!!!!!

GS...you are sooooright....for those envious enough...get yourself trained and join us.

[Rimmer]

GS Alpha
I didn't expect you to agree, however a few things to consider, naturally the ground staff are responsible for a larger part of the deficit as by a percentage they are a far bigger group.
Pension like staff travel is non contractual.


Quote "The pilots take out the same proportion of the fund as they put in" >>> Rubbish, this was a post on the engineers forum a while back and i think it sums things up fairly well, to retire 5 years earlier without anything else means you get 5 years of a pension the ground staff don't get, please don't tell me 1 - 1/4 % of your salary covers that

>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a dig at flight crew by the way just a comparison of the inequalities of the NAPs Pension
- if you further want to presume most of the Captains spend 1/2 their careers as first officers ( and I have corrected my figures as
I have received a PM confirming the shorthaul Captains pay scale goes up to 100K with 85K pensionable average )
the figures actually look like this
*********************************
These are the assumptions and I think they are realistic.
BA Technician Basic earnings ( 2004 ) £27000 -- Retirement age 60, started pension at 18, pays 5.25% contribution.
BA Shorthaul Captain earnings ( 2004 ) £85000 -- Retirement age 55, started pension at 18, pays 6.5% contribution.
Average age of death now is 80 by official figures.
Here is the basic premise.
Technician
Pays £1123PA for 42 years or £47178 ( £27000 - £6000 X 5.25% X 42 )
Receives £14000PA for 20 years or £280000 ( £27000 - £6000 abatement X 2/3 )
****** SO THE BA TECHNICIAN RECEIVES 5.93 TIMES WHAT HE / SHE PAYS IN ********
Captain
Pays £2535PA for 17 years or £43095 ( £45000 - £6000 X 6.5% X 17 )
+ £5135PA for 20 years or £102700 ( £85000 - £6000 X 6.5% X 20 ) = £145795
Receives £52666 for 25 years or £1315350 ( £85000 - £6000 abatement X 2/3 )
****** SO THE BA CAPTAIN RECEIVES 9.021 TIMES WHAT HE / SHE PAYS IN ********
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>

While I don't knock what groups get as rewards I know the shorthaul captains pensionable pay is currently about 100K ( Longhauls Captains pay x 80% - 6K abatement ) and life expectancy now 84, I would hazard to say long term flight crew are taking almost double ( as a percentage to payments ) from the scheme that mere mortals do!


Its very generalised but overall correct, i had no problem with that as such until BA came asking me for money to support a fund that failing

Quote "This is an exercise in clearing the deficit, not redistributing wealth." >>> very true but it must be on the basis of those that caused more clear more


Quote "So why should the pilots pensions fund yours? " >>> nobody wants it too, we just want you to start funding it rather than effectively letting others, the only way that would be fair is to correct the fund so its the same for everyone ( without giving one group a bribe to keep them special ).


Quote "BA pay higher multiples of our contributions than they do for you, Its all part of the fact we get better remuneration and whether your like it or think its fair is, I'm afraid, irrelevant." >>> well its irrelevant until i am asked to start funding it, so why is BAs deficit so large compared to other companies?, could part of the problem be it pays out more for certain groups than outer funds - proportionally?
I want to stress that i don't hate the pilots, i do believe you get a better deal from NAPs than the ground staff and the FUND pays for that ( and so the deficit ), i do believe that raising the pensionable pay to 95% of a longhaul captains PP24 pay constitutes a bribe for you and Balpa to accept it and is unwarranted and immoral.

here is a copy of the letter GMB members have received >>>


You may have heard that the BA Forum, which includes the GMB, is recommending the latest proposals concerning the NAPS pensions scheme.
However, the GMB is not recommending these proposals and has never done so.
In fact, we are recommending that you reject the proposals, for the following reasons:
1) If you are in NAPS you will have to double your pensions contributions just to retain some of your current pension package. For the vast majority, this will be unaffordable.
2) We think that the proposals unfairly favour certain groups, in particular the pilots.
3) We believe that BA is in a position to pay more. The value of the company has doubled since the start of the pensions debate.
4) The proposed changes would be set in stone. There is no commitment for a review, should the situation improve,
5) Other than for the pilots, there are no improvements in BA's final offer for staff who are in the BARP scheme. This remains a very poor scheme.
6) We have had no assurances from BA that our members in APS will continue to have their pay rises fully pensionable.
However, as always, the final decision will be made by you, the members.
We will shortly be giving you the opportunity to tell us whether or not to accept the proposals.
This consultation will take the form, in the first instance, of an internal ballot, run by the GMB.
You will be provided with full details of the proposals and (provided we can get BA to cooperate) you will be able to question your negotiators and state your views in meetings of our members.
In order to gauge how strongly you feel, you will also be asked whether you would be prepared to take industrial action, should BA decide to impose these changes.
However, we can re-assure you that such a drastic course of action would only be undertaken if all alternatives had been exhausted and only after a further balloting process had been completed."


I think you will find a "Large " Majority of ground staff support that view, its the first time in my 22 years at BA i have felt the urge to strike ( i am not in the GMB ) and sadly the first time i have felt bad feeling towards the pilot community at BA.