BMI FINAL SALARY PENSION D Day
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMI FINAL SALARY PENSION D Day
I have been banging on for the last 3 years about acting early about the obvious problems that would occur with the BMI final salary pension and now D day has arrived.
I have also been banging on about the fact that the union should have been asking questions and seeking remedies far earlier. I even mentioned it in this forum but no one thought it was a problem.
Well now the Deputy Chief Executive has confirmed my worst fears that there will be approximately around £21 million pound deficit each year! Perhaps now some of our pilots and union will wake up?
Revised arrangements have to be in force by April 1st, less than one month to decide about something that has been known about since 1999 when there was an 11 million pound deficit recorded.
If early sensible, corrective action had been taken by all concerned, including managment and trustees, we would now not be at this stage.
I have always said that we should be paying more into the scheme, after all it is one of the best in the industry and for me it is the main reason for working for BMI.
Please ensure that you all vote for increased employee contributions (which should have been changed years ago to a far higher contribution). Our 40 % tax rate cushions the blow considerably. Just remember the final return you will get on any increased contributions- it will beat most other investments.
Doing this will also protect this scheme and ensure we all recieve what we have planned to recieve in retirement---Think very carefully, tomorrow always comes and the one certainity is it will be much more expensive than you thought!
PS its interesting to note that our pensions manager has always said there was no problem with the scheme-- one must ask the question, should he be pensions manager?
Still, it can only get worse when Gordon gains power!
Safe landings and pensions to you all!
I have also been banging on about the fact that the union should have been asking questions and seeking remedies far earlier. I even mentioned it in this forum but no one thought it was a problem.
Well now the Deputy Chief Executive has confirmed my worst fears that there will be approximately around £21 million pound deficit each year! Perhaps now some of our pilots and union will wake up?
Revised arrangements have to be in force by April 1st, less than one month to decide about something that has been known about since 1999 when there was an 11 million pound deficit recorded.
If early sensible, corrective action had been taken by all concerned, including managment and trustees, we would now not be at this stage.
I have always said that we should be paying more into the scheme, after all it is one of the best in the industry and for me it is the main reason for working for BMI.
Please ensure that you all vote for increased employee contributions (which should have been changed years ago to a far higher contribution). Our 40 % tax rate cushions the blow considerably. Just remember the final return you will get on any increased contributions- it will beat most other investments.
Doing this will also protect this scheme and ensure we all recieve what we have planned to recieve in retirement---Think very carefully, tomorrow always comes and the one certainity is it will be much more expensive than you thought!
PS its interesting to note that our pensions manager has always said there was no problem with the scheme-- one must ask the question, should he be pensions manager?
Still, it can only get worse when Gordon gains power!
Safe landings and pensions to you all!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Twilight Zone
Age: 57
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will BMI still be around to fund the pension in a couple of years time? This is a serious question, not a dig in any way.
What would happen to the pension/pension liabilities if say VS, BA, SK, LH, UA purchased BMI...?
What would happen to the pension/pension liabilities if say VS, BA, SK, LH, UA purchased BMI...?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: underground
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by llanfairpg
Please ensure that you all vote for increased employee contributions.
d who started this whole sorry mess !moley.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He cannot be blamed for everything this has been a disaster waiting to happen. At BA we are told that our options will probably be to leave in the next few years or take a final salary cut of up to 30%. Probably that is the sort of options you will be left with.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAR better to pay more in and keep the scheme going than let it die, remember that it is not only a pension you get,if you died in service your spouse would get the dependents benefit of half your pension for the rest of their life and the death in service lump sum is like an extra life insurance as well
Like most people, I blame that thieving t*at Gordon Brown who effectivley killed of a lot of pension funds and a lot of peoples hopes and dreams when he dipped his sticky fingers in to pension pots it is mainly due to his spiteful policies and economic ineptitude that our pensions industry is in the state it is. I note that his MP`s pension will not be endangered in the same way and he can vote himself an increase when he feels like it. He should NEVER be allowed to get into number 10 the man is not fit to govern.
Like most people, I blame that thieving t*at Gordon Brown who effectivley killed of a lot of pension funds and a lot of peoples hopes and dreams when he dipped his sticky fingers in to pension pots it is mainly due to his spiteful policies and economic ineptitude that our pensions industry is in the state it is. I note that his MP`s pension will not be endangered in the same way and he can vote himself an increase when he feels like it. He should NEVER be allowed to get into number 10 the man is not fit to govern.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting
there is a discussion going on in the ATC den at the moment.
NATS management is trying to stop the scheme for new entrants, despite the fact that the CAAPs (NATS) fund is extremely healthy.
Good luck at Midland
there is a discussion going on in the ATC den at the moment.
NATS management is trying to stop the scheme for new entrants, despite the fact that the CAAPs (NATS) fund is extremely healthy.
Good luck at Midland
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Well, this is cheaper than a Personal Title!
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the closed-ranks, close-minded selfishness that was exhibited a few years ago when massive redundancies were announced, and the steadfast refusal of some more senior brethren to assist those less fortunate, I'd say that the massive flapping noise you can hear is the sound of chickens coming home to roost.
"Be careful who you sh1t on on the way up; you're likely to meet them again on the way down."
"Be careful who you sh1t on on the way up; you're likely to meet them again on the way down."
Just a numbered other
Well said, fokker.
Anyone who thinks it's sensible to put 5 then 7 then 10 and now 18 per cent into a fund for twenty years and retire for a further twenty on 40% of final salary is a dreamer.
Selfish, too
Anyone who thinks it's sensible to put 5 then 7 then 10 and now 18 per cent into a fund for twenty years and retire for a further twenty on 40% of final salary is a dreamer.
Selfish, too
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Courchevel
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a big danger of throwing away more good dosh after bad. Beware the senior pilots wanting everyone to stay with the fund. We might all pay increased contributions to find we're back here again in a couple of years with the company deciding to close the fund altogether after we've all closed the deficit considerably for them. Why aren't the company increasing their contributions as well? The whole thing's a nightmare! All eyes on BALPA to see their response...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: England.
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You lot do give up sooooooo easily! Not to mention the speed with which you turn against each other.
bmi management may be useless, but they've got no worries dealing with a workforce not only significantly more useless than themselves, but also fragmented by brainless, selfish infighting.
Throw in BALPA, who's only interest seems to be to defend it's main sponsors, the British Airways workforce, and you really are in a mess.
.....unless, of course, you decide to acquire backbones. Just stick up for yourselves for once and show you're not willing to be treated like doormats by a bunch of money grabbing thugs! A viable pension scheme is perfectly possible, even despite G Brown's thievery. The problem is, it requires proper management. You won't get that until you stand up, shoulder to shoulder, and demand it.
Pigs might fly.
Edit : I'm puzzled as to how some people posting here feel entitled to comment on this topic. When you elected to join bmibaby, or Flybe (as known examples) you knew that you were accepting totally new terms and conditions, including a joke of a pension. With that lack of judgement, your "advice" here is hardly of any value!
bmi management may be useless, but they've got no worries dealing with a workforce not only significantly more useless than themselves, but also fragmented by brainless, selfish infighting.
Throw in BALPA, who's only interest seems to be to defend it's main sponsors, the British Airways workforce, and you really are in a mess.
.....unless, of course, you decide to acquire backbones. Just stick up for yourselves for once and show you're not willing to be treated like doormats by a bunch of money grabbing thugs! A viable pension scheme is perfectly possible, even despite G Brown's thievery. The problem is, it requires proper management. You won't get that until you stand up, shoulder to shoulder, and demand it.
Pigs might fly.
Edit : I'm puzzled as to how some people posting here feel entitled to comment on this topic. When you elected to join bmibaby, or Flybe (as known examples) you knew that you were accepting totally new terms and conditions, including a joke of a pension. With that lack of judgement, your "advice" here is hardly of any value!
Last edited by acbus1; 9th Mar 2006 at 09:30.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For once I agree with acbus 1 (not withstanding the description of the esteemed management who have NOT covered themselves in glory over this and many other issues!!) ALL the bmi workforce need to fight as one over these proposals, this pension scheme is part of our terms and conditions of employment, indeed when I joined the company I was told membership was a condition of employment. The indecent haste with which the board wishes to push through any changes raises suspicion that there is more "news" in the pipeline and that the pension fund status may have some bearing on this "news". There are other options that could be considered, such as transferring assets to the fund to make up the deficit, this would have no impact on company cashflow. I agree with TB`s closing line "doing nothing is not an option" only it is the scheme members who must "do somthing" and very quickly, to prevent a massive erosion to our collective terms and conditions, the union groups throughout the company MUST get together and work in unison to challenge these proposals. I for one would be happy to contribute to a fighting fund to finance legal action.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Well, this is cheaper than a Personal Title!
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree that only in united action is there any chance of success. The trouble is that the company only has to buy off a few near the top to divide you utterly, as it did in 2001.
Furthermore, what are you fighting? It's a simple if unfortunate (for those whose future was planned to rely on it) fact that if, through poor performance or misguided investment there is no money in the fund, that's that. Unless, of course, you can show that this has arisen as a result of wilful maladministration. (Not suggesting it is).
A couple of years ago I contemplated returning, principally for the pension rights. I was advised not to make that a consideration as it probably wouldn't be there by the time I reach 60. Sound advice.
To those of you now being asked to pay the pensions of the near-retirees, I say this: ask yourself what they would do for you if the situation were reversed. That's right - they would (did) pull up the ladder. Save the money and buy another house.
Good luck.
Furthermore, what are you fighting? It's a simple if unfortunate (for those whose future was planned to rely on it) fact that if, through poor performance or misguided investment there is no money in the fund, that's that. Unless, of course, you can show that this has arisen as a result of wilful maladministration. (Not suggesting it is).
A couple of years ago I contemplated returning, principally for the pension rights. I was advised not to make that a consideration as it probably wouldn't be there by the time I reach 60. Sound advice.
To those of you now being asked to pay the pensions of the near-retirees, I say this: ask yourself what they would do for you if the situation were reversed. That's right - they would (did) pull up the ladder. Save the money and buy another house.
Good luck.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
acbus 1, you have made 1680 posts over the last few years that averages about 1 a day, every day, maybe you should get a hobby or get flying lessons?
p.s. you do make the odd good point, but the presentation is weak. cheers.
p.s. you do make the odd good point, but the presentation is weak. cheers.
Just a numbered other
Why aren't the company increasing their contributions as well?
OK, acbus, I left, and one of the main reasons was that I saw this day coming, and am safer out than in.
I feel entitled to comment as I'm still a member of thescheme, albeit deferred.
edit: Having re-read your post acbus, I am amused to be assumed to have such 'lack of judgement'.
We'll see, won't we, whether declining an enforced trip to LHR with a 30+% pay cut to remain in an ailing pension scheme showed a lack of judgement?
Last edited by Arkroyal; 11th Mar 2006 at 10:10.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: England.
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your final comment (only just noticed it....those 43 hour edits are tricky, aren't they?) mentions the "ailing pension scheme".
I'll try once more to emphasise that the pension scheme is ailing mainly because the management of it is ailing.
Solve the appalling/lazy management problem and you have a viable scheme!
However, the management won't improve unless scheme members recognise that's where the problem lies and demand action! Stick to that theme at the upcoming roadshows (or is that fraudshows?).
Hey, and just bear in mind that closing down a scheme which isn't fully funded may well not be allowed. Unless the members voluntarily vote to accept it's closure. Time to start brainwashing the weak link, then........the Cabin Crew. Before management propaganda infiltrates their ill informed minds.
I'll try once more to emphasise that the pension scheme is ailing mainly because the management of it is ailing.
Solve the appalling/lazy management problem and you have a viable scheme!
However, the management won't improve unless scheme members recognise that's where the problem lies and demand action! Stick to that theme at the upcoming roadshows (or is that fraudshows?).
Hey, and just bear in mind that closing down a scheme which isn't fully funded may well not be allowed. Unless the members voluntarily vote to accept it's closure. Time to start brainwashing the weak link, then........the Cabin Crew. Before management propaganda infiltrates their ill informed minds.
