BA end pension
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411, please remind me who employs you, so that I may childishly give irrelevant and slanderous anecdotes about them. My Dad is bigger than yours. I once met an ex Pan Am pilot who was an alcoholic, but I can't see what relevance it would have to a thread about pension schemes. Ner, ner, n-nerr nerr!!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any future pilot recruits to BA will have a retirement age of 60 in their contract. This has been decided after calculating the contributions that would be necessary to provide a reasonable pension at age 55.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P22
Where did you get that information from. There are quite a few BA pilots approching 55 that could find it useful.
On the other hand perhaps it will give a opportunity for those pilots happy with their FSS pension to go at 50!
Just wondering, that's all
Where did you get that information from. There are quite a few BA pilots approching 55 that could find it useful.
On the other hand perhaps it will give a opportunity for those pilots happy with their FSS pension to go at 50!
Just wondering, that's all
BA raises retirement age -Shock headline!
P22
Whilst I agree it is logical to allow pilots to continue to age 60 under the new money purchase scheme, I would like to know where you got this info. To my current knowledge that hasn't been published yet.
It also raises the question of equality for DEP's like myself who can't acheive a full pension under the "old" scheme having been recruited late in life.
If we end up with crews on differing pay scales and pensions the company will have an ideal opportunity to further divide and conquer.....
Whilst I agree it is logical to allow pilots to continue to age 60 under the new money purchase scheme, I would like to know where you got this info. To my current knowledge that hasn't been published yet.
It also raises the question of equality for DEP's like myself who can't acheive a full pension under the "old" scheme having been recruited late in life.
If we end up with crews on differing pay scales and pensions the company will have an ideal opportunity to further divide and conquer.....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's that lapsed actuary again.
thedude asked about funding. In theory, if the actuary responsible for the pension scheme has been doing a good job, there will be enough dosh in the fund to pay out the liabilities even if the company stops paying in (as long as no new members join). Problem is pensions are very long-term contracts - a 30-year old in the BA scheme could still be drawing a pension in 2050. No-one has a clue what economic conditions will be in ten years (cynics might say 10 months) time, so the scheme actuary has to err on the side of caution, which is what helps to make these schemes expensive.
Civil servants (and MPs) have unfunded schemes - the chancellor simply reaches into our wallets and takes out as much money as he needs each year to pay their pensions (this is why my council tax has gone up £200 - to pay for all the retired policemen!).
NB note the word lapsed above - none of this should be taken to constitute financial advice of any kind.
PS (for those who haven't already gone to sleep) the rest of Europe all have 'pay as you go' schemes (like our civil servants). This gives them a huge, looming problem - as the population ages, we run out of ability to take money from those working and give it to the retired. The UK has largely avoided this problem by funding the pensions payments - this is the real reason why they want us to join the euro
PPS An actuary is someone who always wanted to be an accountant, but didn't have the personality for it ...
thedude asked about funding. In theory
, if the actuary responsible for the pension scheme has been doing a good job, there will be enough dosh in the fund to pay out the liabilities even if the company stops paying in (as long as no new members join). Problem is pensions are very long-term contracts - a 30-year old in the BA scheme could still be drawing a pension in 2050. No-one has a clue what economic conditions will be in ten years (cynics might say 10 months) time, so the scheme actuary has to err on the side of caution, which is what helps to make these schemes expensive.Civil servants (and MPs) have unfunded schemes - the chancellor simply reaches into our wallets and takes out as much money as he needs each year to pay their pensions (this is why my council tax has gone up £200 - to pay for all the retired policemen!).
NB note the word lapsed above - none of this should be taken to constitute financial advice of any kind.
PS (for those who haven't already gone to sleep) the rest of Europe all have 'pay as you go' schemes (like our civil servants). This gives them a huge, looming problem - as the population ages, we run out of ability to take money from those working and give it to the retired. The UK has largely avoided this problem by funding the pensions payments - this is the real reason why they want us to join the euro
PPS An actuary is someone who always wanted to be an accountant, but didn't have the personality for it ...
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paddy
1st floor Eastpoint, this morning.
Just ask an expert to calculate the contributions required to produce a certain pension at age 60 under a money purchase scheme. Then repeat the calculation with a retirement age of 55. I've seen the figures....they are frightening.
1st floor Eastpoint, this morning.
Just ask an expert to calculate the contributions required to produce a certain pension at age 60 under a money purchase scheme. Then repeat the calculation with a retirement age of 55. I've seen the figures....they are frightening.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The demise of the FS pension for new BA recruits is not unexpected - the company has consitently tried to erode the conditions of service and salary for many years. There is no doubt that the APS which came before NAPS was superior, and that is why its members fought hard to stay separate, having a fully funded sceme which they did not wish to give away. This may seem greedy, but think of it this way - if your neighbour has a larger house than you, do you expect him to give you one of his bedrooms or half his garage?
I don't think BALPA gave the fighting fund anything, M.Mouse - definitely not the £100,000 you claim - I remember at the time giving Mike Post's group £40, but BALPA were neutral as they represented both NAPS and APS people - quite right too.
I don't think BALPA gave the fighting fund anything, M.Mouse - definitely not the £100,000 you claim - I remember at the time giving Mike Post's group £40, but BALPA were neutral as they represented both NAPS and APS people - quite right too.
Controversial, moi?
Yotter
Regarding APS/NAPS I disagree with your analogy but in order to avoid entering a never ending argument where we would never agree I will refrain from further comment except to say that I do believe that had NAPS members known their FSS scheme was/is under threat the apathy, and indeed, ignorance of the situation might have been less evident.
BALPA agreed to underwrite the costs of the anti-merger campaign. The initial figure agreed was £100,000 and more was available. John Frohnsdorff can confirm it. I also have it in writing.
The high court eventually ruled that the anti - merger campaign costs should be met from the pension fund itself and after this ruling (some months after I sent a letter to BALPA HQ questioning BALPA involvement) I received a reply stating that they didn't in fact give any money to the campaign!
I am sure that the decision to underwrite the campaign was nothing to do with the fact that the people in a position to offer this support were all in APS. Also interesting to note that the majority of BALPA's BA membership are in NAPS.
And some are wondering why many of us have lost all faith in the integrity of BALPA leadership.
Edited for clarity.
Regarding APS/NAPS I disagree with your analogy but in order to avoid entering a never ending argument where we would never agree I will refrain from further comment except to say that I do believe that had NAPS members known their FSS scheme was/is under threat the apathy, and indeed, ignorance of the situation might have been less evident.
BALPA agreed to underwrite the costs of the anti-merger campaign. The initial figure agreed was £100,000 and more was available. John Frohnsdorff can confirm it. I also have it in writing.
The high court eventually ruled that the anti - merger campaign costs should be met from the pension fund itself and after this ruling (some months after I sent a letter to BALPA HQ questioning BALPA involvement) I received a reply stating that they didn't in fact give any money to the campaign!
I am sure that the decision to underwrite the campaign was nothing to do with the fact that the people in a position to offer this support were all in APS. Also interesting to note that the majority of BALPA's BA membership are in NAPS.
And some are wondering why many of us have lost all faith in the integrity of BALPA leadership.
Edited for clarity.
Last edited by M.Mouse; 14th May 2002 at 11:07.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When asked if i had any questions at my final board interview with BA last AUGUST I asked the interviewers (one of who was the then head of recruitment) whether BA would be forced to lift the retirement age limit in order to conform the the new EU regs in 2006 and there was alot of unconfortable shuffling! The reply was "it's currently a hotly debated topic"...(!) Needless to say I wasn't offered the job! Incidently I happen to know there's an action group out there (the name escapes me) taking BA on in the courts with a couple of test cases over retirement at 55 and the resulting loss of earnings. They want £400 to put your name in the hat. Maybe some of you recently retired BA guys know more about it?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope it can be agreed that no group should be disadvantaged whilst another group moved up - ideally we should be working to move everyone up. The former would have happened had BA been allowed to raid the APS fund, pay some into NAPS and keep the balance. Three years ago the APS was in surplus, hence the attempt by BA to grab some, since then the market has been hard hit and who knows if BA will have to pump some funds into both schemes.
M.Mouse's point about apathy is very well made - unless battles are fought, the lifestyle of flight crew will be eroded irrevocably.Interestingly enough, there was a well publicised threat by BA to stop the final salary scheme at the time of the proposed merger, and I wrote to the then pilot pension trustee
( now whispering in Singapore, I believe ) with my worries.
The older I get, the more cynical I become, and I'm now positively ancient! Why is it that pay and conditions for staff seem to be going down the plug hole, while pay and bonuses for the senior managers and directors are upwardly mobile. Surely a much more aggressive stance is required from Balpa, reps and the rank and file.
M.Mouse's point about apathy is very well made - unless battles are fought, the lifestyle of flight crew will be eroded irrevocably.Interestingly enough, there was a well publicised threat by BA to stop the final salary scheme at the time of the proposed merger, and I wrote to the then pilot pension trustee
( now whispering in Singapore, I believe ) with my worries.
The older I get, the more cynical I become, and I'm now positively ancient! Why is it that pay and conditions for staff seem to be going down the plug hole, while pay and bonuses for the senior managers and directors are upwardly mobile. Surely a much more aggressive stance is required from Balpa, reps and the rank and file.
Guest
Posts: n/a
buttonmonkey and previous contributors have refered to new EU rules regarding changes to our retirement age limits , to commence in 2006 , if I read correctly .
Could anyone with RELIABLE sources , please expand in more detail upon this distinctly worrying possibility -- it really could have massive repercussions upon us all , directly or indirectly , young or old(er) !
Could anyone with RELIABLE sources , please expand in more detail upon this distinctly worrying possibility -- it really could have massive repercussions upon us all , directly or indirectly , young or old(er) !
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final Salary Schemes
According to the Money section of The Sunday Telegraph ( May 19 ), Ernst & Young recently tried to scrap its FSS for existing members as well as new joiners. Fortunately the staff hired good legal council and managed to get E & Y ' to rethink plans in the light of objections from existing members '. In the article Alastair Meeks of Pinsent Curtis Biddle said: ' Many pension scheme conversions are taking place without adequate consideration of the legal restrictions imposed by the terms of the specific scheme. I expect more challenges of this type to emerge.' Also James Mann of Fox Williams ( they hired two firms of solicitors! )
said: ' Employment law places constraints on an employers' ability to change unilaterally key benefits on which employees have placed reliance. It is wrong to imagine that employers can simply steamroller changes through.'
That may be the case - but it doesn't stop the bean counters from trying. My advice would be to get organised now, as it seems highly likely companies such as BA will try it on sooner or later. First they try to buy you out, then force you out.
According to the Money section of The Sunday Telegraph ( May 19 ), Ernst & Young recently tried to scrap its FSS for existing members as well as new joiners. Fortunately the staff hired good legal council and managed to get E & Y ' to rethink plans in the light of objections from existing members '. In the article Alastair Meeks of Pinsent Curtis Biddle said: ' Many pension scheme conversions are taking place without adequate consideration of the legal restrictions imposed by the terms of the specific scheme. I expect more challenges of this type to emerge.' Also James Mann of Fox Williams ( they hired two firms of solicitors! )
said: ' Employment law places constraints on an employers' ability to change unilaterally key benefits on which employees have placed reliance. It is wrong to imagine that employers can simply steamroller changes through.'
That may be the case - but it doesn't stop the bean counters from trying. My advice would be to get organised now, as it seems highly likely companies such as BA will try it on sooner or later. First they try to buy you out, then force you out.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it conceivable that the young BA cadets on the FSS today, on retirement 30 years from now, may find that the fund cannot pay out as advertised? Or are the funds big enough to deal with all the forthcoming retiring pilots who can expect to draw big pensions into their eighties and nineties?
Mistrust in Management
Monty77,
The large majority of pilots who retire in the next few years are in the APS scheme. All the young BA cadets are in the NAPS scheme which is totally separate.
The NAPS scheme is seriously underfunded and could not, on current projections, meet it's commitments. However BA are obligated under the current rules to underwrite the scheme. However if one were to consider a nightmare scenario where BA goes bust, I believe that pensions would be much reduced or cease to exist at all for some new pilots.
It may be worth pointing out that many years ago the APS scheme was in a very similar position to that which NAPS is now. i.e. it was also seriously underfunded.
That situation was in part due to the vagaries of the stock market, as is also the case with NAPS at the moment. Eventually the APS investments turned around and the scheme found itself in surplus; now the scheme has 'matured' and all investments are by law put in a safe place, i.e. 'gilts'.
I can envisage , hopefully, a similar scenario for the NAPS scheme. (Just so long as BA doesn't go bust in the next few years!)
To sum up. I don't believe that the pilots who are retiring in the next few years will have any affect on the pension prospects of our younger colleagues.
Regards
Exeng
The large majority of pilots who retire in the next few years are in the APS scheme. All the young BA cadets are in the NAPS scheme which is totally separate.
The NAPS scheme is seriously underfunded and could not, on current projections, meet it's commitments. However BA are obligated under the current rules to underwrite the scheme. However if one were to consider a nightmare scenario where BA goes bust, I believe that pensions would be much reduced or cease to exist at all for some new pilots.
It may be worth pointing out that many years ago the APS scheme was in a very similar position to that which NAPS is now. i.e. it was also seriously underfunded.
That situation was in part due to the vagaries of the stock market, as is also the case with NAPS at the moment. Eventually the APS investments turned around and the scheme found itself in surplus; now the scheme has 'matured' and all investments are by law put in a safe place, i.e. 'gilts'.
I can envisage , hopefully, a similar scenario for the NAPS scheme. (Just so long as BA doesn't go bust in the next few years!)
To sum up. I don't believe that the pilots who are retiring in the next few years will have any affect on the pension prospects of our younger colleagues.
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exeng,
Now that BA has failed to combine APS (suplus) and NAPS (black hole) I would have thought that the company would be seriously looking at scrapping final salary pensions for the current staff as well as the new starters.
This is the route that has already been taken by several UK companies (Iceland the biggest at the moment) to stop any obligation on the company to underwrite a pension scheme that is seriously underfunded.
Now that BA has failed to combine APS (suplus) and NAPS (black hole) I would have thought that the company would be seriously looking at scrapping final salary pensions for the current staff as well as the new starters.
This is the route that has already been taken by several UK companies (Iceland the biggest at the moment) to stop any obligation on the company to underwrite a pension scheme that is seriously underfunded.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure they are, but they wouldn't dare. Management know that closing NAPS for current workers is the one thing that would have the entire company enraged. It simply would not be allowed to pass. It also creates the problem that they have then eliminated almost all incentive to stay for the highly skilled, long term tech staff. If NAPS is closed and your final pension from that scheme is fixed, it becomes necessary to seek the best possible pay you can get in order to ensure you accrue sufficient funds for your retiremment through a money purchase scheme. Thats certainly not something you'd get staying at BA and I think you'd see an awful lot of flight crew and engineers jumping ship simply because there really isn't anything to lose anymore.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exeng: thanks, you seem to know your onions.
handsolo: you too. I value your advice. I'm a 37yr old military bloke with a wife and two school age kids. I'm in the BA hold pool and have been advised by mates in the industry to go for BA shorthaul (fastjet=no longhaul) over the charters on account of quality of life. The facts seem to be that final salary pensions are shortly to be things of the past. Would you move to anywhere else, and if so, why?
handsolo: you too. I value your advice. I'm a 37yr old military bloke with a wife and two school age kids. I'm in the BA hold pool and have been advised by mates in the industry to go for BA shorthaul (fastjet=no longhaul) over the charters on account of quality of life. The facts seem to be that final salary pensions are shortly to be things of the past. Would you move to anywhere else, and if so, why?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Handsolo and mainline mates. How do you perceive the BACitiExpress situation, where we have a similarly proportioned pension deficit, closed scheme (to new members) , and a worried workforce.
Do you think it worth while supporting us, 'cos we may very well the trial case in terms of closing the final salary scheme completely before they do it to you.
We would like to think we must stick together on this one.
Do you think it worth while supporting us, 'cos we may very well the trial case in terms of closing the final salary scheme completely before they do it to you.
We would like to think we must stick together on this one.