BA pilots 'prepared to strike'?
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rimmer - I don't really care two hoots what flawed analysis somebody posts on an engineering forum. It is incorrect. End of story. I don't know who wrote your analysis but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a trustee. Once again, if you want to know if we put in less and take out more, the only people who can tell you this are the trustees, and they say no. Not an anonymous contributor to a forum. Not your mate in the canteen doing some 'back of a fag packet' sums. Only the trustees. They say we don't.
Now I shouldn't even respond to the rather simplistic analysis you have copied over here but just as one example of its errors, it seems to have overlookd the fact that BA pay approx 3.8 times a pilots contribution into the fund compare to approx 2.5 times a ground staff member. What effect does that have compounded over 30 years? Would you be happier if BA paid us that cash directly into our pay packets and we then put that directly into our pension funds?
Once again, the cornerstone of your whole argument is false. Ask the trustees.
We already fund it sufficiently to meet our requirements. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, ask the trustees. You want the fund corrected so it is the same for everyone, yet you also want me to work 10 years longer when you only have to work five, meaning that I, and all my aircrew colleagues, have to give up 10 years of pensions payments compared to your five to meet the deficit. Where's the fairness in that? I hate to state the obvious but we are special. We are being asked to work twice the extra time as you. Thats 5 pretty special years to me!
Well its nice of you to say it but it doesn't alter the fact that you argument is fundamentally unsound. The money to pay for rasing the pensionable pay has come from the transitional arrangements BA themselves suggested. They offered it in one form, we asked for it to be presented in another form which better suited us, BA agreed. Where's the immorality in that? Similar arragements are available for the cabin crew should they want them. Given that this is a deficit clearing exercise do you think BA would agree to BALPAs requests if it added to the burden on the fund?
It is a shame that you feel bad feeling towards the pilots now, moreso because it is not based on correct information but the propaganda the GMB has been publishing as part of its grandstanding exercise. From the outset that particular union has been aiming to rob Peter to pay Paul with initiatives like capping maximum pensions. I'm sure they are dissappointed they haven't achieved their wealth redistribution aims and I've no doubt that they will continue to stir up resentment against the pilots, who went to this negotiation in search of a fair solution. Fortunately I and most of my colleagues have broad shoulders. We are used to being disliked by other employees who have no interest in the truth (you should check out the BASSA website one day), it's just another day for us.
Now I shouldn't even respond to the rather simplistic analysis you have copied over here but just as one example of its errors, it seems to have overlookd the fact that BA pay approx 3.8 times a pilots contribution into the fund compare to approx 2.5 times a ground staff member. What effect does that have compounded over 30 years? Would you be happier if BA paid us that cash directly into our pay packets and we then put that directly into our pension funds?
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 ).
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.
It is a shame that you feel bad feeling towards the pilots now, moreso because it is not based on correct information but the propaganda the GMB has been publishing as part of its grandstanding exercise. From the outset that particular union has been aiming to rob Peter to pay Paul with initiatives like capping maximum pensions. I'm sure they are dissappointed they haven't achieved their wealth redistribution aims and I've no doubt that they will continue to stir up resentment against the pilots, who went to this negotiation in search of a fair solution. Fortunately I and most of my colleagues have broad shoulders. We are used to being disliked by other employees who have no interest in the truth (you should check out the BASSA website one day), it's just another day for us.
From their website:
"British Airways has received confirmation that a strike ballot by the Transport and General Workers Union's cabin crew branch has produced a vote in favour of strike action.
While this is a disappointing result, this does not mean that a strike is inevitable.
We have arranged to meet T&G officials this week and we very much hope they will enter into meaningful discussion with us on the issues the union has raised.
Importantly, in the event that a strike did take place, we want to minimise any disruption to our customers. The leaders of the T&G cabin crew branch have created a worrying time for our customers and our staff. We hope the T&G grasps the opportunity to put aside threats of disruption and resolve their concerns through negotiation.
No dates have been set for potential action and all our flights continue to operate normally."
"British Airways has received confirmation that a strike ballot by the Transport and General Workers Union's cabin crew branch has produced a vote in favour of strike action.
While this is a disappointing result, this does not mean that a strike is inevitable.
We have arranged to meet T&G officials this week and we very much hope they will enter into meaningful discussion with us on the issues the union has raised.
Importantly, in the event that a strike did take place, we want to minimise any disruption to our customers. The leaders of the T&G cabin crew branch have created a worrying time for our customers and our staff. We hope the T&G grasps the opportunity to put aside threats of disruption and resolve their concerns through negotiation.
No dates have been set for potential action and all our flights continue to operate normally."
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Heathrow
Age: 63
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage
Ok i can go with what your saying but really your just re-enforcing my overall view and that of the ground staff, if BA can pay in more for you then maybe it should now for us rather than you and maybe it should have all along.
Would i be happy for BA to have paid you it in your hand and you did it - sure ......................would have looked a bit different come bench marking etc but would have been more open and fair now, the overall call here baiting or not is Via BA or whatever you do better out of NAPs proportionally ( and you have just said it ) , i don't see that as fair to continue.
I only have my view but don't knock the small guys when they have to take a stance eventually.
Quote " yet you also want me to work 10 years longer when you only have to work five "
>>> So you think its fair and just that you retire 5 years earlier because "YOUR A PILOT ", i don't want you to have to work more than i will have to, actually looking at working conditions and the effects on health Engineers should retire at 55 and Pilots at 60 but wont go there.
Quote "I hate to state the obvious but we are special"
>>> Ok right as if i didn't sense that coming
Quote "We are being asked to work twice the extra time as you. That's 5 pretty special years to me!"
>>> No your not you were just being asked to pay a lot more for the difference and that's the crux of it!
Quote " The money to pay for raising the pensionable pay has come from the transitional arrangements BA themselves suggested."
>>> So if BA raise your pensionable pay the pension you receive comes from a different NAPs to mine - glad we cleared that one up, I can see why BA suggested it.
Quote " Given that this is a deficit clearing exercise do you think BA would agree to BALPAs requests if it added to the burden on the fund?"
>>> Sure they would for 3500 guys, its just a case of tweaking things for the other 29000 ask the GMB, raising any groups pensionable pay leads to a higher pension and more for NAPs to fund - How can that be any different - Its immoral especially at this time..
Quote "to rob Peter to pay Paul "
>>> So why didn't they just take your NRA to 60 and mine to 65 and work out correct Accruals for it?, while that might not still be fair it would have been accepted, i think with what they have done now and typically BA tried to hide it there's a chance a standoff might take the company to the wall - we will see how special we all are then !
You must agree that the lower paid members of BA have little to loose and all to gain, a typical baggage handlers or Engineering Maintenance Workers pension is in the region of £6500 in payment, you ask me to feel sorry when its suggested you work 5 years more or BA Lifts your pensionable pay £21000 PA, you are special but there are degrees and your not that special.
PS i tried the Bassa site but i couldn't access much and therefore cant comment
Ok i can go with what your saying but really your just re-enforcing my overall view and that of the ground staff, if BA can pay in more for you then maybe it should now for us rather than you and maybe it should have all along.
Would i be happy for BA to have paid you it in your hand and you did it - sure ......................would have looked a bit different come bench marking etc but would have been more open and fair now, the overall call here baiting or not is Via BA or whatever you do better out of NAPs proportionally ( and you have just said it ) , i don't see that as fair to continue.
I only have my view but don't knock the small guys when they have to take a stance eventually.
Quote " yet you also want me to work 10 years longer when you only have to work five "
>>> So you think its fair and just that you retire 5 years earlier because "YOUR A PILOT ", i don't want you to have to work more than i will have to, actually looking at working conditions and the effects on health Engineers should retire at 55 and Pilots at 60 but wont go there.
Quote "I hate to state the obvious but we are special"
>>> Ok right as if i didn't sense that coming
Quote "We are being asked to work twice the extra time as you. That's 5 pretty special years to me!"
>>> No your not you were just being asked to pay a lot more for the difference and that's the crux of it!
Quote " The money to pay for raising the pensionable pay has come from the transitional arrangements BA themselves suggested."
>>> So if BA raise your pensionable pay the pension you receive comes from a different NAPs to mine - glad we cleared that one up, I can see why BA suggested it.
Quote " Given that this is a deficit clearing exercise do you think BA would agree to BALPAs requests if it added to the burden on the fund?"
>>> Sure they would for 3500 guys, its just a case of tweaking things for the other 29000 ask the GMB, raising any groups pensionable pay leads to a higher pension and more for NAPs to fund - How can that be any different - Its immoral especially at this time..
Quote "to rob Peter to pay Paul "
>>> So why didn't they just take your NRA to 60 and mine to 65 and work out correct Accruals for it?, while that might not still be fair it would have been accepted, i think with what they have done now and typically BA tried to hide it there's a chance a standoff might take the company to the wall - we will see how special we all are then !
You must agree that the lower paid members of BA have little to loose and all to gain, a typical baggage handlers or Engineering Maintenance Workers pension is in the region of £6500 in payment, you ask me to feel sorry when its suggested you work 5 years more or BA Lifts your pensionable pay £21000 PA, you are special but there are degrees and your not that special.
PS i tried the Bassa site but i couldn't access much and therefore cant comment
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actually looking at working conditions and the effects on health Engineers should retire at 55 and Pilots at 60 but wont go there.
Not only that, your solutions all revolve around taking from the pilots, rather than negotiating a better deal with BA.
Rather than bleating on here, go and bleat to your union to negotiate a better deal. However it is no doubt much easier for you to vent your jealousy and bile here.
I think you would have made an excellent CSD.
Last edited by L337; 15th Jan 2007 at 14:03. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA pilots age
I understand that prior to Oct 1st, F/O can fly till 65, has BA changed the rules for Captains since November 23,2006 ?? And can anyone provide an update to the age for Lufthansa pilots ...it is my understanding that 3 of their pilots filed an age discrimination complaint against the airline and over here in Canada there is not much news on this...would appreciate some info. Rick
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Company and BALPA are the only two interested parties who think this is a good deal - given that it is understandable there will be suspicion about it from other employee groups.
Controversial, moi?
rick3333331
Prior to Oct 2006 all BA pilots had a compulsory retirement age of 55. AFter that date due to EU legislation it changed and is now 65 (or shortly will be).
Jet II
Perception is indeed so important. It is not actually a good deal but the least worst deal that, we are led to believe, we could expect to achieve.
It is plain from many postings here that the whole complicated issue is not very well understood by many people. Frankly, the GMB and BASSA in particular are doing nothing to help their members fully understand.
Perhaps their leaders do not understand either.
Prior to Oct 2006 all BA pilots had a compulsory retirement age of 55. AFter that date due to EU legislation it changed and is now 65 (or shortly will be).
Jet II
Perception is indeed so important. It is not actually a good deal but the least worst deal that, we are led to believe, we could expect to achieve.
It is plain from many postings here that the whole complicated issue is not very well understood by many people. Frankly, the GMB and BASSA in particular are doing nothing to help their members fully understand.
Perhaps their leaders do not understand either.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Heathrow
Age: 63
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337
Well as for Envy, do i envy your terms and conditions? - bloody right but i also know how life is, likewise i wouldn't mind the terms and conditions of a CSD!
My comments here are really a correction to the statements from the pilots, you say you are special and deserve to retire early - that's fine, you deserve a special arrangement on how NAPs will continue from now on - that's fine.
But then when the cabin crew or GMB say they want a special arrangement because they are special people and deserve it all the relies are negative.
I have no comment about what you get as remuneration ( pay ) but BAs FTSE 100 pension deficit is huge ( members wise ) compared to other FTSE companies, my pension is no better than my brothers in BT, actually its worse and we are paid similar - NAPs is a biased scheme accept it, don't expect staff on 12K a year to help fund it, maybe my pensionable pay should be set at 95% of the highest paid person in engineering to compensate and we can call that fair!
So the comment about retiring early probably shouldn't have been made ( re - who goes when ) i know my failings!
What has really got people myself included worked up is the fact that BA looks to most employees to be doing a private deal when saying its the same for all - , that's fine, however should you find yourself out of work because the other groups want to quote "negotiate a better deal" you had best save your "why i am so special " stories for Mr O/Leary.
M Mouse
You would be surprised at what many do know, they know for starters abatement effects poorer earners far more than larger earners, we in engineering accept what has been said about BA paying in more for yourselves, however with any FSS anyone who gets 24 incruments pays in less as a percentage over their career than someone who gets 2, its not really about what you get its what you pay in for it thats seen as wrong and BA ways of hiding truths.
Well as for Envy, do i envy your terms and conditions? - bloody right but i also know how life is, likewise i wouldn't mind the terms and conditions of a CSD!
My comments here are really a correction to the statements from the pilots, you say you are special and deserve to retire early - that's fine, you deserve a special arrangement on how NAPs will continue from now on - that's fine.
But then when the cabin crew or GMB say they want a special arrangement because they are special people and deserve it all the relies are negative.
I have no comment about what you get as remuneration ( pay ) but BAs FTSE 100 pension deficit is huge ( members wise ) compared to other FTSE companies, my pension is no better than my brothers in BT, actually its worse and we are paid similar - NAPs is a biased scheme accept it, don't expect staff on 12K a year to help fund it, maybe my pensionable pay should be set at 95% of the highest paid person in engineering to compensate and we can call that fair!
So the comment about retiring early probably shouldn't have been made ( re - who goes when ) i know my failings!
What has really got people myself included worked up is the fact that BA looks to most employees to be doing a private deal when saying its the same for all - , that's fine, however should you find yourself out of work because the other groups want to quote "negotiate a better deal" you had best save your "why i am so special " stories for Mr O/Leary.
M Mouse
You would be surprised at what many do know, they know for starters abatement effects poorer earners far more than larger earners, we in engineering accept what has been said about BA paying in more for yourselves, however with any FSS anyone who gets 24 incruments pays in less as a percentage over their career than someone who gets 2, its not really about what you get its what you pay in for it thats seen as wrong and BA ways of hiding truths.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the overall call here baiting or not is Via BA or whatever you do better out of NAPs proportionally ( and you have just said it ) , i don't see that as fair to continue.
" yet you also want me to work 10 years longer when you only have to work five "[/B]
>>> So you think its fair and just that you retire 5 years earlier because "YOUR A PILOT ".
>>> So you think its fair and just that you retire 5 years earlier because "YOUR A PILOT ".
"We are being asked to work twice the extra time as you. That's 5 pretty special years to me!"
>>> No your not you were just being asked to pay a lot more for the difference and that's the crux of it!
>>> No your not you were just being asked to pay a lot more for the difference and that's the crux of it!
" The money to pay for raising the pensionable pay has come from the transitional arrangements BA themselves suggested."
>>> So if BA raise your pensionable pay the pension you receive comes from a different NAPs to mine - glad we cleared that one up, I can see why BA suggested it.
>>> So if BA raise your pensionable pay the pension you receive comes from a different NAPs to mine - glad we cleared that one up, I can see why BA suggested it.
" Given that this is a deficit clearing exercise do you think BA would agree to BALPAs requests if it added to the burden on the fund?"[/B]
>>> Sure they would for 3500 guys, its just a case of tweaking things for the other 29000 ask the GMB, raising any groups pensionable pay leads to a higher pension and more for NAPs to fund - How can that be any different - Its immoral especially at this time..
>>> Sure they would for 3500 guys, its just a case of tweaking things for the other 29000 ask the GMB, raising any groups pensionable pay leads to a higher pension and more for NAPs to fund - How can that be any different - Its immoral especially at this time..
"to rob Peter to pay Paul "
>>> So why didn't they just take your NRA to 60 and mine to 65 and work out correct Accruals for it? while that might not still be fair it would have been accepted, i think with what they have done now and typically BA tried to hide it there's a chance a standoff might take the company to the wall - we will see how special we all are then !
>>> So why didn't they just take your NRA to 60 and mine to 65 and work out correct Accruals for it? while that might not still be fair it would have been accepted, i think with what they have done now and typically BA tried to hide it there's a chance a standoff might take the company to the wall - we will see how special we all are then !
You must agree that the lower paid members of BA have little to loose and all to gain, a typical baggage handlers or Engineering Maintenance Workers pension is in the region of £6500 in payment, you ask me to feel sorry when its suggested you work 5 years more
I very much doubt that the lower paid staff in BA will drive the company to the wall. You may think they don't have much to lose with a £6500 pension, but they aren't going to get that anywhere else, and how much are Globeground, Servisair or Aviance paying for the same job?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it took a couple of years, but divide and rule appears to have infiltrated not only APS/NAPS/new joiners but also aircrew vs groundcrew/engineers. 'Don't want your sympathy'. You probably won't get it. Or support, for that matter. I was flushed out of the pool (ex-mil pilot) following Sep 11 and looking at it now, I'm glad. LHR, traffic and taxes, yours to keep.
Pilots are about as 'special' as any other cog in the wheel that flies aircraft from A to B. More skilled than other cogs, therefore more money, yes. 'Special'. Well that's open to interpretation.
Pilots are about as 'special' as any other cog in the wheel that flies aircraft from A to B. More skilled than other cogs, therefore more money, yes. 'Special'. Well that's open to interpretation.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Heathrow
Age: 63
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage
Naturally we wont agree on this but i do want you to see why other groups will be and are very unhappy.
I personally had several issues with the pension, capping the pension in payment was one that was unacceptable and the RPI restriction another, the RPI is especially a problem as it reduces the pension you will get on money you have already banked, who knows exactly where that will end up but i have 20 years to go and if 84 for life expectancy is right it will lose me estimated 10% of my pension ( or at least £50000 ) as it reduces my pensionable pay by 15%, had i been a pilot in NAPs i wouldn't now have to worry about what i have already banked would i?
Had BA left things as they were as 60 and 65 NRD the GMB would have a problem but not like it does now.
Quote "It also comes from the huge sums of money I'm feeding into NAPS by not drawing a pension from age 55 to 60 whilst continuing to pay in that 8.25%."
Not sure where your getting that from as we all have to pay 8.25% now, besides i thought the whole point of pushing back the retirement age was to fund the deficit not one groups pensionable pay costs?
I can see a lot of pain over this, BA are making out we are all on the same deal and its blatantly not true, most would have accepted it if they had just left it at 60/65 as opposed 55/60, at least you knew who was getting what then.
Naturally we wont agree on this but i do want you to see why other groups will be and are very unhappy.
I personally had several issues with the pension, capping the pension in payment was one that was unacceptable and the RPI restriction another, the RPI is especially a problem as it reduces the pension you will get on money you have already banked, who knows exactly where that will end up but i have 20 years to go and if 84 for life expectancy is right it will lose me estimated 10% of my pension ( or at least £50000 ) as it reduces my pensionable pay by 15%, had i been a pilot in NAPs i wouldn't now have to worry about what i have already banked would i?
Had BA left things as they were as 60 and 65 NRD the GMB would have a problem but not like it does now.
Quote "It also comes from the huge sums of money I'm feeding into NAPS by not drawing a pension from age 55 to 60 whilst continuing to pay in that 8.25%."
Not sure where your getting that from as we all have to pay 8.25% now, besides i thought the whole point of pushing back the retirement age was to fund the deficit not one groups pensionable pay costs?
I can see a lot of pain over this, BA are making out we are all on the same deal and its blatantly not true, most would have accepted it if they had just left it at 60/65 as opposed 55/60, at least you knew who was getting what then.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rimmer, you seem to think that our past accrued pensionable pay is going up to 95%. It is not, it remains at it's current 80%.
We have exactly the same worries as you here.
BALPA believe that we will see very few above RPI payrises from now on, and therefore it will not be a worry. They did not see the point in distributing money to acheive a greater than RPI Cap, when we might never see such a payrise. I tend to agree. If more money was available, perhaps that goal could have been achieved too, but the money just is not there.
had i been a pilot in NAPs i wouldn't now have to worry about what i have already banked would i?
BALPA believe that we will see very few above RPI payrises from now on, and therefore it will not be a worry. They did not see the point in distributing money to acheive a greater than RPI Cap, when we might never see such a payrise. I tend to agree. If more money was available, perhaps that goal could have been achieved too, but the money just is not there.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Strood, Kent
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rimmer, everything that is 'already banked' remains as it is now and will be paid out as promised using the existing LPI cap of 5% for pension in payment (which isn't changing under the new scheme anyway).
It is only for future accrual that the cap on any increase in pensionable pay is reducing to RPI. I'm not thrilled at that, but apparently it is an important part of how to reduce how the deficit looks on paper. On the other hand, how many pay rises do we ever get in excess of RPI anyway?
Edit: It seems even I got my wires crossed a bit, so no wonder many of our non-BALPA colleagues who are less informed by their unions about what the new plans actually involve are not too sure. Thanks for putting me right GS Alpha.
It is only for future accrual that the cap on any increase in pensionable pay is reducing to RPI. I'm not thrilled at that, but apparently it is an important part of how to reduce how the deficit looks on paper. On the other hand, how many pay rises do we ever get in excess of RPI anyway?
Edit: It seems even I got my wires crossed a bit, so no wonder many of our non-BALPA colleagues who are less informed by their unions about what the new plans actually involve are not too sure. Thanks for putting me right GS Alpha.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beaver Eager, I believe Rimmer was refering to the fact that pensionable pay is capped to RPI for both past and future accrual. For pilots, the past accrual pensionable pay remains at 80% and the future accrual is to become 95%, of the pay points on April 1st 2007. After that, the percentages mean diddly squat. The pensionable pay will increase with pay rises, but will be capped at RPI for all.
The 2.5% and 5% LPI caps you refer to determine what will happen to your pension year on year after retirement. However, the 2.5% you talk about was simply a proposal. BALPA managed to get rid of this for ALL. The LPI cap remains unchanged at 5% for both past and future accrual.
GS-Alpha
The 2.5% and 5% LPI caps you refer to determine what will happen to your pension year on year after retirement. However, the 2.5% you talk about was simply a proposal. BALPA managed to get rid of this for ALL. The LPI cap remains unchanged at 5% for both past and future accrual.
GS-Alpha
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Heathrow
Age: 63
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GS
One question for you all though as you seem on the ball, the GMB made comment about reviews of NAPs if in credit and RPI for APS, they seem to think the answer from BA is no comment, is that correct?
One question for you all though as you seem on the ball, the GMB made comment about reviews of NAPs if in credit and RPI for APS, they seem to think the answer from BA is no comment, is that correct?