BA/bmi merger (was Virgin & Balpa - bmi next ?)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: EDI
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Peter Simpson will become bmi Managing Director. He will be responsible for ensuring safe and secure operations
and overseeing the transition of activity to BA."
This was announced this afternoon it's not greatnews for BMI.
He is the one person most out of touch with he work force within our company.
Most people outside of HQ think he is a Muppet. (ie. also a puppet)
and overseeing the transition of activity to BA."
This was announced this afternoon it's not greatnews for BMI.
He is the one person most out of touch with he work force within our company.
Most people outside of HQ think he is a Muppet. (ie. also a puppet)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Near LONDON
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to appoint the MD of city flyer to the Job,
A short term position though until its all integrated.
Is there more to this? the integration of BMI regional into city flyer??
Re the pension announcement, anyone know if this is LH decision or if it was imposed by the pensions authority?
A short term position though until its all integrated.
Is there more to this? the integration of BMI regional into city flyer??
Re the pension announcement, anyone know if this is LH decision or if it was imposed by the pensions authority?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: over the hill
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-The Pensions Authority.
Despite a credible plan drawn up between DLH & the trustees to fund the scheme broadly in line with current investment strategies, the regulator still would not agree for the scheme to continue to be funded.
- someone remind me whose side they are supposed to be on?
Despite a credible plan drawn up between DLH & the trustees to fund the scheme broadly in line with current investment strategies, the regulator still would not agree for the scheme to continue to be funded.
- someone remind me whose side they are supposed to be on?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DLH have shafted bmi, the pension scheme has all but collapsed and BA are doing there best to put us at the bottom, pay us the minimum and make this stressful time as difficult as possible.
Just remind me why the hell I'm doing this job? It used to be a fun and respected profession, now it's just massive hassle. I for one am not looking forward to the merger with BA, I get the impression that bmi will be resented by the BA workforce. It's ironic that this is probably the best thing that could happen to BA and it's workforce, but you wouldn't think so.
Just remind me why the hell I'm doing this job? It used to be a fun and respected profession, now it's just massive hassle. I for one am not looking forward to the merger with BA, I get the impression that bmi will be resented by the BA workforce. It's ironic that this is probably the best thing that could happen to BA and it's workforce, but you wouldn't think so.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just remind me why the hell I'm doing this job? It used to be a fun and respected profession, now it's just massive hassle. I for one am not looking forward to the merger with BA,
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: over the hill
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skip.rat - it is bmi trustees and bmi group who are relevant. LH is not the relevant sponsoring company, simply the shareholder, albeit 100% owner.
understood; I mentioned them as they have volunteered the cash to help fund the shortfall; as I understand it they were not under any legal obligation to do so, despite having a strong moral obligation to do the right thing;- it's just a shame that the plan was not accepted by the regulator.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This should not be a surprise to BALPA, if they had seen the deal structure proposed.
It seems that BA have told DLH that they consider the pension scheme to be akin to debt for which they will not assume any liability or future liabilities.
DLH may have been in a position by which they could have legally walked away from the complete (£180m?) liability, albeit the PR implications would have been massive. Instead DLH have negotiated with BA and the PPF an £85m one-off payment, to try and keep the workforce at least half motivated and avoid any potential legal challenges to DLH for full recompense.
The PPF was aimed towards helping those pension schemes (i.e. unsecured creditors) affected with companies (and parent companies) that have gone bust e.g. Woolworths etc.
Whilst BMI was in no way a going concern, it was acquired by DLH which knew full well of the huge pension scheme liabilities upon signing its various purchase agreements and from the sounds of this deal, Lufthansa (a fully solvent group) is able to walk away from this liability.
It seems that BA have told DLH that they consider the pension scheme to be akin to debt for which they will not assume any liability or future liabilities.
DLH may have been in a position by which they could have legally walked away from the complete (£180m?) liability, albeit the PR implications would have been massive. Instead DLH have negotiated with BA and the PPF an £85m one-off payment, to try and keep the workforce at least half motivated and avoid any potential legal challenges to DLH for full recompense.
The PPF was aimed towards helping those pension schemes (i.e. unsecured creditors) affected with companies (and parent companies) that have gone bust e.g. Woolworths etc.
Whilst BMI was in no way a going concern, it was acquired by DLH which knew full well of the huge pension scheme liabilities upon signing its various purchase agreements and from the sounds of this deal, Lufthansa (a fully solvent group) is able to walk away from this liability.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan,
Firstly you've got the entire community's sympathies re your pension situation, it's a worry for all of us and your anger and concern is understood completely.
There may be some incredulity amongst BA pilots that the BMIcc is demanding so much but I've yet to encounter any resentment, that's been a one way emmotional highway from you guys. Likewise it takes some lateral thinking to imagine that your acquisition, and the hopeful employment lifeline it will bring you, is the best thing that ever happened to BA's employees!
As you should know, and its been repeated ad nausem, your not being stuck on the bottom of the MSL. Your CC may have ensured that your not even offered that option anymore. Yet again despite they now OBVIOUS INSOLVENCY of BMI there's somebody spinning a totally disingenuous line about both what they feel they are owed as an outcome of the insolvency and the responsibility that BA pilots have for the predicament that BMI pilots find themselves in. Whilst bemoaning the state of the industry your really demanding the rest of us give do you don't have to face the consequences of your career decisions. We've to many ex BMI guys at BA to not understand that many stayed in the hope you'd be handed the keys to the kingdom elsewhere. I resent not your decision or belittle the logic or the rational, but it's you who must live with the reality of the outcome.
Every BMI pilot who is lucky enough to be at BA by the end of the year will be made feel very welcome and without doubt the expansion it brings is great news for all at IAG. It's expansion we paid for and your going to get to share in. A continual harping on about your jackpot wishlist, whilst already keeping at least what you got even ignoring the added bonus of the most secure job in the uk market, meerly leaves those of us at BA feeling not resentful just mystified.
Good luck to those facing both pension and employment Armageddon. I sincerely hope that the appointment of the new MD will provide an opportunity for IAG to seek a way forward that protects your jobs.
Firstly you've got the entire community's sympathies re your pension situation, it's a worry for all of us and your anger and concern is understood completely.
There may be some incredulity amongst BA pilots that the BMIcc is demanding so much but I've yet to encounter any resentment, that's been a one way emmotional highway from you guys. Likewise it takes some lateral thinking to imagine that your acquisition, and the hopeful employment lifeline it will bring you, is the best thing that ever happened to BA's employees!
As you should know, and its been repeated ad nausem, your not being stuck on the bottom of the MSL. Your CC may have ensured that your not even offered that option anymore. Yet again despite they now OBVIOUS INSOLVENCY of BMI there's somebody spinning a totally disingenuous line about both what they feel they are owed as an outcome of the insolvency and the responsibility that BA pilots have for the predicament that BMI pilots find themselves in. Whilst bemoaning the state of the industry your really demanding the rest of us give do you don't have to face the consequences of your career decisions. We've to many ex BMI guys at BA to not understand that many stayed in the hope you'd be handed the keys to the kingdom elsewhere. I resent not your decision or belittle the logic or the rational, but it's you who must live with the reality of the outcome.
Every BMI pilot who is lucky enough to be at BA by the end of the year will be made feel very welcome and without doubt the expansion it brings is great news for all at IAG. It's expansion we paid for and your going to get to share in. A continual harping on about your jackpot wishlist, whilst already keeping at least what you got even ignoring the added bonus of the most secure job in the uk market, meerly leaves those of us at BA feeling not resentful just mystified.
Good luck to those facing both pension and employment Armageddon. I sincerely hope that the appointment of the new MD will provide an opportunity for IAG to seek a way forward that protects your jobs.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cityflyer - agree that LH would have had great difficulty taking cash consideration without further contributing this to the deficit.
I suspect however that the cash consideration paid by BA may have been driven by how much it was felt was appropriate to put into the pension deficit.
I suspect however that the cash consideration paid by BA may have been driven by how much it was felt was appropriate to put into the pension deficit.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been talking to the PPF and they said in general terms that just because the pension regulator has rejected a plan to keep the scheme running they have to examine the facts and there have been cases where they have rejected applications for PPF entry and it has gone back to the table to sort out a plan that the regulator approves without entry to the PPF.
It will amaze me if they manage to offload the pension liability to the PPF as IAG/DLH are no financial lightweights and a share sale took place not an insolvency as such. The PPF does not exist for companies to abdicate/reduce their liabilities and just because the regulator is not happy doesn't mean they will accept the fund for their responsibility.
It will amaze me if they manage to offload the pension liability to the PPF as IAG/DLH are no financial lightweights and a share sale took place not an insolvency as such. The PPF does not exist for companies to abdicate/reduce their liabilities and just because the regulator is not happy doesn't mean they will accept the fund for their responsibility.
you maybe right Mr Benip however it still does not explain why the Pension regulator should sever the financial link between Lufthansa and the scheme. Certainly a bleak day...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rhino - presumably because Lufthansa did not come up with enough readies for him to be satisfied the scheme had enough cash to discharge it's future liabilities despite the trustees being satisfied with the deal after receiving independent financial advice.
The amount Lufthansa has "volunteered" (£84M) to give now, to part way supplement the PPF scheme, is the same amount they had pledged to keep the scheme running as was. Guess they won't stump up any more.
The amount Lufthansa has "volunteered" (£84M) to give now, to part way supplement the PPF scheme, is the same amount they had pledged to keep the scheme running as was. Guess they won't stump up any more.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I blame Gordon brown for raiding the pensions in the first place back in 1997, this country now no longer has defined benefit pensions as a direct result (unlike the rest of europe). May he rot for what he has done.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not privy to the details of the transaction, but the substance of what is happening here is not what the PPF was set up for.
There now also exists a situation whereby there is talk of a £60m+ black hole, but that is misleading as it is based on accounting estimates that can change millions on a daily basis, depending upon the value of the assets in the scheme and the liabilities (based on life tables and discount rates).
I find it highly questionable that LH & BA can be involved in a transaction that ultimately results in a reduction to contractual pension commitments, and think this should be of concern to every (private sector) member of a DB scheme.
There now also exists a situation whereby there is talk of a £60m+ black hole, but that is misleading as it is based on accounting estimates that can change millions on a daily basis, depending upon the value of the assets in the scheme and the liabilities (based on life tables and discount rates).
I find it highly questionable that LH & BA can be involved in a transaction that ultimately results in a reduction to contractual pension commitments, and think this should be of concern to every (private sector) member of a DB scheme.
A someone who benefits from a decent pension scheme, I feel really sorry for the bmi folk. What has taken place is appalling.
I'm afraid, though, that the Trustees did not get solid enough guarantees from the various Companies that have owned the airline. They appear to have let the owners off the hook - not recently, but back when the deals were done.
You cannot blame "shareholders". If I were stupid and rich, I might chose to buy lots of IAG shares. That does not give me a liability of any sort for the IAG pension scheme.
Remember that IAG is a HUGE pension scheme, with a very little airline trying to fund it.
No. Way back when, someone took their eye off the ball.
If it does all go tits up in Pension terms, I do hope it generates lots of publicity. Folk need to focus on this Pension lark!
I'm afraid, though, that the Trustees did not get solid enough guarantees from the various Companies that have owned the airline. They appear to have let the owners off the hook - not recently, but back when the deals were done.
You cannot blame "shareholders". If I were stupid and rich, I might chose to buy lots of IAG shares. That does not give me a liability of any sort for the IAG pension scheme.
Remember that IAG is a HUGE pension scheme, with a very little airline trying to fund it.
No. Way back when, someone took their eye off the ball.
If it does all go tits up in Pension terms, I do hope it generates lots of publicity. Folk need to focus on this Pension lark!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FANS _ couldn't agree more. Sold down the river by the big boys. Pension regulator would not approve what DLH had to offer so PPF here we go. But, there are questions starting to surface about the regulators decision see link; Analysis: Why isn't the Pensions Regulator chasing Lufthansa?