Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Terms and Endearment
Reload this Page >

British airways pension to close.

Terms and Endearment The forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.

British airways pension to close.

Old 11th Sep 2017, 23:02
  #61 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: pluto
Posts: 168

The annual increase in a DB pension is x 16 against an AA of 40k. Low/zero CPI. So lots of NAPSters are hit with a huge tax charge even with no additional input. A reduction in AA would mean an even bigger tax charge.

A reduction in tax relief would alter the balance between employee v employer inputs. High employee inputs (NAPS) would become less advantageous against the free money provided by an employer input (BARP 2).

Crunch the numbers after November.

Unfortunately, middle class pensions are a chancellor's cash cow.
blimey is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2017, 08:00
  #62 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: London
Posts: 134
Guessing there will be no strike action ? Just bend over and get a good shafting ?
Snapper5 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2017, 13:55
  #63 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 528
qwertyuiop is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 21:55
  #64 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 544
Pre Hamble guys retired at 50 on a full pension.Honeywell,who made 1.5 Billion usd last year closed there uk pension scheme with the reason ' Everyone else is doing it'
I've heard Virgin is considering changes to their scheme.
stormin norman is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 22:49
  #65 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,684
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
Turin - I can remember back in the late nineties I did a layover in Jo'burg, BA used the same hotel then, in Rosebank, I think. In the hotel at the same time as us was the first Hamble cadet to reach retirement age, (possibly 55?), if what we were told was true and not a wind up this Captain was retiring with 100K lump sum and an annual pension of around 80K. Does this mean that you are now going to have to make do with an annual pension of only 65K?

I am not a BA Captain, or FO for that matter.

I was expecting about 37K, I am now looking at about 22k after the closure.

No Aston Martin for me I'm afraid.

Jet II
So its up to the individual to make sure that they have enough saved for a pension, nobody else.
Yup, which is what I and about 17000 other NAPS active members thought they were doing.

APS was the Golden age and there were plenty of complaints about them from those on NAPS - now the same is happening all over again.

So why should those staff on BARP accept less good pay rises simply to fund NAPS? - I was in NAPS and even I could defend that.
I have never heard any NAPS employee complaining about APS members, partly because some NAPS people were voluntarily bought out of APS. However most current NAPS staff joined on NAPS and accepted the employment on that basis, same with BARP. Its not like people were forced to join BA was it?

I understand the argument that NAPS members wish to retain the benefits they were offered when they joined because there is a yawning chasm between the retirement income you can expect as a BARP member and a NAPS one. This doesn't alter the fact though that due to the demographic and financial environment changes explained above it is simply not economic nor arguably right for BA to continue to fund gigantic pension contributions to a gold plated elite at the expense of the majority of employees. The truth is BA is making lower profits, paying out lower profit share, is less able to invest in new fleet and product because of the crippling and open ended commitment to a financially unsustainable pension scheme.
What are you on about? Gold plated elite? I am not talking about pilots on 80k + per year salary. There are a hell of a lot of other employees on very modest wages. I read about one today who was expecting 18K on retirement and is now looking at only 12K with only 4 years to make up the shortfall. Impossible.

BA is making record profits. In excess of 1.3 Billion for each of the last two years. It has just brought in two new fleets of modern state of the art aircraft (A380 & B787), all while apparently being hamstrung by the pension obligations.
TURIN is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 08:13
  #66 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 72
Posts: 231
I believe BA is just following a trend pension debt is going up everywhere, the most obvious is the STRP where the retirement age has increased and will increase again, the inflation index has been weakened by about 1% moving from RPI to CPI. The UK has a pension time bomb in that most public sector pensions are unfunded, this can only be honoured by raising taxes. Things are only going to get worse, much worse.
Walnut is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2017, 00:09
  #67 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Delta of Venus
Posts: 404
Two points.

1. If all of these large companies (multinational or not) are making "billions" in profit why are the dividends so pathetic? and therefore the income to pension schemes that invest in such companies. Where is all the money going? I know gearing is quite high these days as debt is "cheap" due to low interest rates but that can't account for all the money by a long margin.

2. A lot of the problems with the UK pension sector specifically can be traced back to the Thatcher government in the 80's and Browns tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late 90's.
Thatcher detested the defined benefit pension system because her ilk of "entrepeneurs" were prohibited from it, so the "private" pension industry was born, and we all know how well that turned out with the mis-selling scandal and p*ss poor investment returns from fund managers who got paid huge bonuses anyway (how very Thatcherite...)
Then along came "Broon" who decided to raise 5 billion a year (that the government could then p*iss away) by ending tax relief on pension scheme investment returns. That's at least 100 billion to date (plus lost returns on the shortfall), no wonder schemes are struggling. He'll have a nice MP's pension of course, not affected by investments. The man who stole your old age indeed.

Last edited by Private jet; 15th Sep 2017 at 00:20.
Private jet is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2017, 07:24
  #68 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 740
The problem (well, prime among many) with Brown was he was an avowed Thatcherite. Said so himself!
KelvinD is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2017, 09:30
  #69 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 2
First thing, I am not flight crew.
By my reckoning, when/if NAPS closes, I stand to lose a minimum of 68k over my lifetime if I live to an estimated age of 85.
That would be the difference if I took my pension out now at age 55 and if I left it to mature at 65.

I may be wrong but wasn't there a time when BA took a pensions "holiday" and made no contributions?
Wasn't the switch to NAPS2 and the Plan 60 and 65 supposed to secure this pension?

I also think that there is an ulterior motive to getting rid of NAPS. With the pension burden removed, it will be easier for BA to outsource ground services and other sections.
Unfortunately this has already started
englishrob is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2017, 11:27
  #70 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: germany
Posts: 4
BA pensions "holiday" of many years was, we were told, because the APS fund was extremely healthy. Whilst BA stopped paying in, the staff did not.
Then the Chancellor helped himself to our future.
oscara is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2017, 13:53
  #71 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,494
I may be wrong but wasn't there a time when BA took a pensions "holiday" and made no contributions?.
This is where it gets confusing ( for me at least) 'cos when we refer to BA pensions it could be one of (at least) the three different and independent schemes that can cover existing employees at BA.

As I understand BA never took a holiday from NAPs, they took one from APS, for the reasons stated by oscara...

And sorry, an utter numpty when to comes to pensions sums.
wiggy is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2017, 13:39
  #72 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: West London
Posts: 1
some facts

Hi all, read most of this thread and found quite a lot of incorrect info.

As of 2016, 75% of the NAPS fund was invested in equity and property, 25% was in bonds and guilts. The fund grew in 2016 by 2.7 billion. Most of this increase is not company contribution or employee contribution or deficit reduction payments, its return on investment.

Please be clear, NAPS fund is not all invested in low yield bonds. However the deficit calculation uses the assummed yield of low yield bonds.

I am waiting for a reply from BA at present related to figures in their 2016 end of year accounts, they are published and available on the internet. In it, in employee benifits, section 31 i think, are figures from 2015 and 2016, the one I am most interested in is the remeasurement of liabilies. In 2015 it was 363 million-a positive figure, in 2016 its about (4500)-a negative figure.

So in one year through changing assumption you get a change of nearly 5 billion? I'm not buying it.

Mortality rates have been flat between 2010 and 2017 (official figures) These changes in predicted life span have not been factored in to the equation to estimate deficit.

IAG have an active bid now for Air Berlin, 7th largest european airline that has resently failed. I dont know what part/ parts IAG are bidding for and I believe it is unlikely they will win their bid, but they are bidding.

850 million was given to share holders 2016/2017. (dividend and share buy back) Mr Walsh has predicted at least 10% increase in dividend year on year until 2020.

I have simpathy for those BA employees that are in BARPS, it is a poor DC scheme that will not provide a suitable level of pension. I apposed its introduction and actively inform my colleagues of how poor it is and that I believe a DC scheme needs to have a contribution level of 25% to return a desent level of pension. I joined BA 32 years ago and part of my deferred pay was a NAPS pension that I paid 5.25% for, a great benifit. (It costs significantly more now and is diluted). Those that have joined since 2003 had BARPS. That is not my fault, my doing or something I like. Please remember this was BA's doing, not NAPS members.

I could continue for some time but will cut to the chase, I do not believe there is a massive black hole in the NAPS pension fund. I believe the method used to calculate the future liabilities is extremely inaccurate, perhaps deliberately. British Airways/ IAG is now and predicts in the future it will continue a strong financial position of profitability and growth. This is not the profile of a company that can not afford is legal obligation to its pension schemes.

It will be difficult to stop BA closing NAPS. The best way I can see is a court case that challenges the assumptions to create the deficit and the ability for BA to support the schemes. Please petition your unions to take on this case should the trustees agree to rule changes that allow closing for future accrual.

Beyond this the DC scheme that they plan to provide instead of NAPS and BARPS is still a poor provision. Combined contributions of at least 25% are required, this level is not available to anyone short or long term and needs to there for all, permenantly, not just some.

This issue could bring all employees together irrispective of age profession or date of joining. It needs to to help ensure all of our futures.
Angry spanner is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2017, 07:33
  #73 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 544
Very little out here on what actually is on the table Vs other airlines.
You cannot propose change without options.
stormin norman is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2017, 11:21
  #74 (permalink)  

Uncle Pete
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Frodsham Cheshire
Posts: 902

It's dead easy to get rid of a pension scheme into the PPF via a shell company worth as little as 1. The shell company is liquidated and, hey presto, the scheme enters the PPF.

That's what happened to the bmi pension fund and was regarded as a spectator sport by the politicians. My MP did his level best to help but was thwarted by his elder brethren.
MaximumPete is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2017, 12:07
  #75 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,156
I was fortunate enough to have a final salary scheme -not BA - but a former state owned company privatised by the wonderful Mrs T .

It always amazes me that people rightly criticised Gordon brown but then his successors do absolutely nothing to correct the situation, in some senses they are worse than heim because they actually see how the idea works out.

In todays world of no one having jobs for life and living longer it is hard to sustain final salary schemes butt heir are much much better models (Canada and France ) to name two than the UKs shambolic approach which puts all the risk on the pensioner and none on the unregulated (in practice not theory) provider . Companies avaoid making pension contributions whenever they can (so called holidays) even though it is straight from the 'University of Bleedin' Obvious' that lean years will follow good years (but of course the senior management will have left after about 4 years so its not their problem.

yet another situation where to be quite honest we (ie the majority of the population , would be better off not having our country run from Westminster .
pax britanica is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2017, 12:49
  #76 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by pax britanica View Post
Companies avaoid making pension contributions whenever they can (so called holidays) even though it is straight from the 'University of Bleedin' Obvious' that lean years will follow good years
Actually the reality is different (as ever). Companies were never at liberty to just take contribution holidays - they were contractually obliged to maintain contributions. In the 1980s the Thatcher givernment accused companies of "hiding" profits in pension funds to avoid corporation tax, and theatened to tax the pension fund surplusses. Companies could only avoid this by approaching the regulator and getting permission to either (i) transfer money out of the fund back to the company or (ii) stopping contributions for a period to allow the surplus to dissipate. So the "pension holidays" were mandated by the Thatcher government, not greedy senior executives.

But hey, lets not pollute this thread with any actual facts - we've managed to get to page 4 without that happening so far...
PDR1 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2017, 14:44
  #77 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Uk
Age: 38
Posts: 402
New BARP will at the top end be 8% employee contribution for a 14% company contribution. It's a small improvement because the maximum was 12%. There are various other tiers too but essentially for most of them you benefit even if you will have to pay in a little more. Those who pay in the current standard 6% would loose out unless they increase their contributions to 8%. It was deemed to be an improvement for BARP members but not NAPS members. As far as I know the current offer is NAPS members to BARP2 with some sort of financial payment and BARP members to BARP2 with no financial payment. I think it's relatively comparable to other companies, unlike the command pay for the new captains.
bex88 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2017, 15:03
  #78 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Button Moon
Posts: 302
A very small 2% increase but only if we put in an extra 2% too. Hardly setting the world on fire is it. I, like many others, take advantage of the smart AVC scheme so put in a bit extra anyway but of course with the caveat that I have the option to stop those at any time if money gets tight one month. I also note that the current ratio hasn't been maintained. If IAG want us to put in an extra 2% I would expect the company to put in and additional 4%, in line with the current 1:2 ratio being 6% and 12% respectively. This becomes 8% and 16%. I really don't see that as unreasonable and while 2 and 2 is a starting point, it shouldn't be the final result.

That said, I've got mates that have just lost their jobs at MON and frankly I feel a bit of an arse discussing how much our pensions are increasing by at such a sad time, but we mustn't let core t's and c's decline further.

Many will disagree but just my thoughts.
2 Whites 2 Reds is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2017, 16:02
  #79 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Uk
Age: 38
Posts: 402
A very good point I had not considered. I too make use of smart AVC's. As has been said on BARP you need to be looking at combined contributions of around 25%. As BARP members the only leverage we have to improve the deal lies in the hands of NAPS members. From yesterday's email it looks like rather than improve the BARP2 offering the company are looking to offer a financial settlement to NAPS members only. I am up at the 25% combined level and the extra 2% would be welcome but I think any additional is going to go towards a stocks and shares ISA because of accesibility in the medium term.
bex88 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2017, 16:58
  #80 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Button Moon
Posts: 302
Yeah I'm just not sure what the future holds for pensions tbh. The government want us all to have them but then sees fit to dip their paws into our money every few years with cunning rule changes. Fiscal responsibility just isn't rewarded anymore, it's seen as the rich sitting on big nest eggs for the treasury to take a bite out of whenever the chancellor fancies it.

You're wise going down the multi prong route to retirement security. I'm doing the same albeit with property. Although landlords are being hammered too

Back to the BA situation....I read the various emails (albeit not all of them ) and noted that NAPS will be given a sum of money to kick off their BARP2 accounts while current BARP1 members will get what their given and be happy with it because it's "an improvement". I would argue that it's not really an improvement. I would also argue that, while I completely get the NAPS members frustration and concerns, it's unfair to divide the workforce in such a way and continuing to do so only weakens us, which is of course why big companies use such methods. I firmly believe that we should be resisting the divide and conquer tactics once and for all. I'm very happy to support my NAPS colleagues at every opportunity and hope for the same in return.
2 Whites 2 Reds is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.