BA next after Barclays and Morrisons?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't just think it is failed applicants who feel like that and I think it is a little arrogant for you to assume that anyone who disagrees with you (or Carnage Matey) is someone to be insulted. That kind of behaviour is unprofessional, adds nothing to the debate and will only get the rest of us a bad name.
Last edited by demomonkey; 6th Jun 2009 at 12:57.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the failed applicant chant is showing extreme arrogance and showing that you really do think you are superior. I know some excellent pilots who "failed" the selection process, equally i know some right knobs who passed! and vice versa.
Its a shame that this government have trully screwed this country, particularly when it comes to pensions. Unfortunately the writing is on the wall for NAPS and the personal cost to all those involved at BA is unacceptable but inevitable. Probable best to accept it and make solid plans now rather than to fight a loosing battle and put the company's future at risk.
Its a shame that this government have trully screwed this country, particularly when it comes to pensions. Unfortunately the writing is on the wall for NAPS and the personal cost to all those involved at BA is unacceptable but inevitable. Probable best to accept it and make solid plans now rather than to fight a loosing battle and put the company's future at risk.
Last edited by bluepilot; 7th Jun 2009 at 20:18.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some ways it's better to be the 1st on a new pension scheme than last on an old one! If you had joined on the FS pension there is no way you would have got the promised reward.
However, the old pension scheme is now doomed and in some ways I think it will be better for unity if everyone is on the new scheme from now on. Unfortunately, any change in the old scheme will mean people at the top having to stay for longer to build up their pension, thus increasing stagnation. Either way it's bad news.
However, the old pension scheme is now doomed and in some ways I think it will be better for unity if everyone is on the new scheme from now on. Unfortunately, any change in the old scheme will mean people at the top having to stay for longer to build up their pension, thus increasing stagnation. Either way it's bad news.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dead Eye : pleased to meet you too!
Thanks for the valuable vote on the most ignorant thing ever said on pprune. I shall donate the money to a charity for ignorant pilots.
This was discussed a few years ago and some of the NAPs people were extremely defensive of their pensions. Nothing wrong with that.
Some of the more aggressive posters held the view that they would not budge an inch and would go on strike even if it meant the company folded. Now that is a little extreme.
To a greater or lesser extent we are all motivated by self-interest.
So I can understand a 20 year BA Captain not being too concerned about the retirement plans of a 23 year old First Officer. Just as the First Officer is not going to go on strike for the former and more than likely attempt to break any strike action to secure his future.
Divided and ruled.
By the way I passed BA selection after 16 years in the military just before Sep 11. Doh! Still regard them as arguably the best airline in the UK but have elected to loaf about in the tax-free sun for the foreseeable future and be home every night with a glass of wine (Location, location, location). A colleague of mine was a month ahead of me in the recruitment pipeline and had signed his contract, which, to their credit, BA honoured. I wouldn't swap with him now, which just goes to show life is what actually happens to you while you are busy making plans.
Thanks for the valuable vote on the most ignorant thing ever said on pprune. I shall donate the money to a charity for ignorant pilots.
This was discussed a few years ago and some of the NAPs people were extremely defensive of their pensions. Nothing wrong with that.
Some of the more aggressive posters held the view that they would not budge an inch and would go on strike even if it meant the company folded. Now that is a little extreme.
To a greater or lesser extent we are all motivated by self-interest.
So I can understand a 20 year BA Captain not being too concerned about the retirement plans of a 23 year old First Officer. Just as the First Officer is not going to go on strike for the former and more than likely attempt to break any strike action to secure his future.
Divided and ruled.
By the way I passed BA selection after 16 years in the military just before Sep 11. Doh! Still regard them as arguably the best airline in the UK but have elected to loaf about in the tax-free sun for the foreseeable future and be home every night with a glass of wine (Location, location, location). A colleague of mine was a month ahead of me in the recruitment pipeline and had signed his contract, which, to their credit, BA honoured. I wouldn't swap with him now, which just goes to show life is what actually happens to you while you are busy making plans.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor investment management
Strikes me that part of the problem is the appalling mismanagement of pension finds by the City. I can't believe that any of these funds are in potential deficit when the past twenty years has seen record returns for anyone wise enough to invest in the right things - property for one thing.
Just what were the overpaid charlatans of the financial institutions doing while property was soaring in value.
Perhaps their mismanagement and absurdly high levels of self-reward are at least partially to blame for the crises affecting so many schemes such as BA.
I am now a member of a defined benefit scheme although am also a previous member of both the BA NAPS and Royal Insurance schemes both of which were financial salary and are now in deficit.
Does anyone know what is likely to be the impact on these schemes going forward if the above happens?
Desk-pilot
Just what were the overpaid charlatans of the financial institutions doing while property was soaring in value.
Perhaps their mismanagement and absurdly high levels of self-reward are at least partially to blame for the crises affecting so many schemes such as BA.
I am now a member of a defined benefit scheme although am also a previous member of both the BA NAPS and Royal Insurance schemes both of which were financial salary and are now in deficit.
Does anyone know what is likely to be the impact on these schemes going forward if the above happens?
Desk-pilot
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desk-pilot:
Pension investment management is nowhere near as straightforward as you assume. For a start, the fund is not only trying to find investment returns, but has obligations to pay out to those who are current pensioners. If fully invested in property, you would find yourself with illiquid investments in property funds, and be totally unable to pay the obligations to your present pensioners.
I do not know how you come to the conclusion that the deficit is solely the result of the investment performance. Granted, there are some good and some bad managers in which the fund will be invested, but for a fund the size of NAPS, it is wholly unrealistic to expect that the fund can be entirely invested in the best managers (as their fund sizes are capped, and good managers are often only shown to be so after the event). Furthermore, the deficit arises not only through investment performance, but also through the present valuation of the liabilities, and hence changing age assumptions and discount rates of gilts have huge effects on the valuations.
It is wholly foolish to invest a fund the size of NAPS in property to any greater degree than around 10% (including all other alternative assets). Productive investments in companies are far better investments that depend not only on the sale of the asset, but generate significant operating returns in the interim (something that property assets often fail to achive through rentals).
This thread is not a discourse on investment strategy, but comment is required to rectify misconceptions.
I would also hesitate to speculate as to the impact of whatever BA plan, since there are many options and alternatives, depending upon the involvement of the regulator and the legal structure of the fund.
Pension investment management is nowhere near as straightforward as you assume. For a start, the fund is not only trying to find investment returns, but has obligations to pay out to those who are current pensioners. If fully invested in property, you would find yourself with illiquid investments in property funds, and be totally unable to pay the obligations to your present pensioners.
I do not know how you come to the conclusion that the deficit is solely the result of the investment performance. Granted, there are some good and some bad managers in which the fund will be invested, but for a fund the size of NAPS, it is wholly unrealistic to expect that the fund can be entirely invested in the best managers (as their fund sizes are capped, and good managers are often only shown to be so after the event). Furthermore, the deficit arises not only through investment performance, but also through the present valuation of the liabilities, and hence changing age assumptions and discount rates of gilts have huge effects on the valuations.
It is wholly foolish to invest a fund the size of NAPS in property to any greater degree than around 10% (including all other alternative assets). Productive investments in companies are far better investments that depend not only on the sale of the asset, but generate significant operating returns in the interim (something that property assets often fail to achive through rentals).
This thread is not a discourse on investment strategy, but comment is required to rectify misconceptions.
I would also hesitate to speculate as to the impact of whatever BA plan, since there are many options and alternatives, depending upon the involvement of the regulator and the legal structure of the fund.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: York International
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strike
Fears of strike action as BA tells cabin crew 2,000 jobs must go - Times Online
I guess a strike would finish it, airline and all. I hope they are not that stupid.
I guess a strike would finish it, airline and all. I hope they are not that stupid.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: BHX
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the pension deficit is bigger than the market capitalisation of the company, something will have to give.
It is probably only a matter of time before all DB schemes are shut down in the UK. Sad sign of the times.
It is probably only a matter of time before all DB schemes are shut down in the UK. Sad sign of the times.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern Turkey
Age: 82
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
Especially when you can enjoy it in a sun-drenched paradise TAX-FREE - a privilege not open to those with 'government' pensions.
Happiness is being retired on a fully-funded final salary scheme (which, luckily, has nothing whatsoever to do with BA).
It is probably only a matter of time before all DB schemes are shut down in the UK. Sad sign of the times.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The harsh reality
Sadly, all final salary pensions will give way eventually. They were designed when people retired with an average life expectancy of around 10 years, now the life expectancy is near 20 after retirement if not more, and with pilots retiring younger than most, I am surprised it has lasted this long at BA... The only safe way to have a good pension is to ensure you provide for yourself, and take any government/company pensions as a bonus, because they could go under at any point!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just remind me guys, the money I'm putting into my FSPS is my money? So, is there not a contrct between employee and capilist b'staard, sorry employer to look after my earnings and return same in the condition in which (at least) they found them? I waas 'invited to join after a 1 year probationary period but at the time it did not feel right to say no.
I know I'll be the poorer for that but perhaps one benefit of this discussion could be to warn those below us seniority wise of the diminishing prospects a company pension offers. Especially as some 20 year olds could easil live to be 120.
Sir George Cayley (120? Did that 2 centuries ago)
I know I'll be the poorer for that but perhaps one benefit of this discussion could be to warn those below us seniority wise of the diminishing prospects a company pension offers. Especially as some 20 year olds could easil live to be 120.
Sir George Cayley (120? Did that 2 centuries ago)
If your contributions and your employers don't make enough money to pay the percentage of your final salary that you want, who exactly is supposed to step in and make up the shortfall for you ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some here forget that the short term costs associated with winding up a FSS is greater than keeping it going. I guess for BA the best would be an extension from the Pensions Regulator to the period allowed to fund it, or maybe a pension holiday. The worst option for the pension fund would be the company going bust so allowing flexibility in payments to help BA through this downturn could long term benefit the fund. Once (maybe IF) fully funded though it would be VERY vulnerable.
