IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs

[kungfu panda]

stormin norman

I think that the only game changer will be a 90% effective vaccine taken by 70% of people. Therefore people will need to be paid to take the Vaccine.

[777JRM]

stormin norman

Yes, we need some positive news!

As of today in America, 3,378,859 people have recovered from COVID-19. The media only reports the deaths and new case numbers; remember that the vast majority of people survive.

Since CV19 started, up to Aug 26, 1,390 healthy people (no known pre-conditions) died in England with CV19.
The other 28,141 had a ‘pre-existing condition’.

Data from NHS England on .gov website.

[R T Jones]

Add in the average age of those who've died of Covid 19 in England has been 80 with an average of 3 underlying health conditions.

[thetimesreader84]

2 most common underlying heath conditions with a Covid death? Dementia and Alzheimer’s. A damning indictment on our (in)ability to protect care homes, and a stunning view on who is really at risk from this disease.

[FlipFlapFlop]

Get the gist but the generalisation is not quite right.
Actual ages of UK deaths are.....
45–54 years 2,578
55–64 years 6,813
65–74 years 12,766
75–84 years 18,729

[RexBanner]

Originally Posted by Count von Altibar

Well round 2 will be coming around the corner shortly and there'll be a chance for more in-fighting as BA will no doubt issue another S188 very soon. Let's face it 280 CR and 300 technically redundant pilots in a pool being subsidised by others doesn't measure up to the actual crisis facing the company. Very few are flying and the money ain't coming in, BA are actually cancelling flights compared to what they planned to operate in August/September things ain't good.

Jesus enough with the doom and gloom. Add to those figures the 200 out the door via VR, over 100 retiring in the next 12-18 months and PT measures taken at the outset of the crisis. BA will have rid itself of close to the Headcount equivalent of 1000 pilots shortly. If BA were to “right size” the airline for the actual market as it stands at this precise time probably 70%+ of us would be joining the queue to the dole office. The other thing though is that at that point the economies of scale would completely break down and the airline would fail. BA have to balance carefully between downsizing and being ready for a bounceback, WW already stated at the beginning of the Covid crisis that he would seek to avoid the mistakes of 9/11 and the ‘08 Financial Crisis where too much capacity was cut and the airline was unable to respond to the uptick in the market.

[TURIN]

Er, remind me again how much of BA's revenue comes from transatlantic traffic?

[RexBanner]

And that’s going to last forever, is it? Well might as well call in the receivers now then if that’s the case.

[srjumbo747]

Originally Posted by Longtimer

MissChief

A question from the sidelines. Why should a senior pilot be expected to give up his / her retirement dreams and retire early with a reduced pension, so as to allow a junior to continue with their life style? A lot of the "senior pilots" had survived the Airline School of hard knocks in the past.

Because quite a few on those ‘senior’ pilots knew, many years ago, that they were going to have to retire at either 55 or 60. That age limit has been increased to 65 so they’ve had 5 more years of work than they expected when they were in their 30’s and 40’s.
A few of them, not just at BA but at VS too have nice Airforce pensions as well and are hanging on to their last few months whilst others are being made redundant.
Selfish p&i(Łs.

[TURIN]

Originally Posted by RexBanner

And that’s going to last forever, is it? Well might as well call in the receivers now then if that’s the case.

It doesn't need to last forever, just another few months. Then call in the receivers...or more likely the government and renationalise.

[Longtimer]

srjumbo747

Seems to me that the selfish finger points both ways.

[wiggy]

Sometimes you just can't win .......

Since you haven't mentioned it I take you are not aware that the retention pool that has been set up at BA is in effect partially/fully funded by those pilots still employed giving up some of their cash?

..and TBH why should any pilots still at BA should feel "guilty" in the current circumstances given it's BA who are swinging the axe?

srjumbo 747

A few of them, not just at BA but at VS too have nice Airforce pensions

Care to quantify "nice"..a few hundred a month after Tax? Several thousand? What do you reckon?

[777JRM]

Exactly.
No BA pilot should feel guilty.
Remember who the enemy is.

[srjumbo747]

Well however much it is it’s more than the young guy, way down the seniority list, with a mortgage, loan, kids, etc.
The people, 62+ when they were younger knew they’d be retired at 60 so have had an extra few years of good money.

[777JRM]

They’ve also had an extra few years of giving half of that to the Treasury.

[Wirbelsturm]

I assume that from your position, way up high on your moral high horse, you can clearly ascertain with abject certainty the financial position of all these people who you assume are so much better off than you?

The remaining earnings power of the 62+ year old person is now considerably less than that of the 'young' guy as well. We have all been at the bottom and it has always been that 'those at the top' have it and have had it better. I can only assume that when you feel secure in your chosen profession, whatever that might be, after years of hard work that you will willingly step aside when those beginning their career complain that you're 'bed blocking'. Who is to say that the guy/girl at the end of their career isn't working their nuts off to clear mortgages, loans, kids etc... before they are required, by age, to retire. Perhaps they wish to enjoy their last few years of a 40+ year career in flying that they will miss when they retire. Perhaps they have financial commitments they have to clear?

Redundancy is awful. The system chosen was that which was in the MOA, warts and all. A lot of people took VR even though the package was, frankly, atrocious. A huge amount of people took part time. The 'headline' figure was reduced from 1200 down to 270. Not that it helps the 270 but it certainly helps the 930! The rest of us are taking a 20%, percent hence hits those higher up for a greater sum, quite rightly, paycut to support those without a fleet so as they can retain their jobs.

Aren't we the awful ones eh?

Give me strength.

[bex88]

Different times, different pressures. Gulf war, 15% mortgage rates, rise of the loco’s, Arab spring, financial crash, Covid etc etc. It is easy to assume those on PP24 have had a easy 24 years. Now you can get or at least you could, get into the RHS of a Jet very quickly. Back then most worked some pretty terrible jobs to climb the ladder.

As I said, different times, different pressures. Both have merits to their arguments. The only thing that is reasonable to suggest is that we protect peoples careers. That may mean a bit of give, perhaps that give will not be uniform.

[wiggy]

Ok, jumbo, so I asked you to quantify what these "nice pensions" were that ex RAF in Virgin and BA are getting and you reply

Well however much it is it’s more than the young guy, way down the seniority list, with a mortgage, loan, kids, etc..

How about some facts: to give you a clue somebody who left the services as a junior officer 30'ish years ago after 15 years service could now be drawing a pension of around 600-700STG a month before tax, plus or minus..

And anybody can still be supporting family, have a mortgage, have other outgoings......that can be a factor at all stages of seniority.

[NoelEvans]

I find the vilification of those who 'should be retiring early to make way for others' that I read here to be utterly nauseating.

Yes, some may be showing off about their wealth, they are gits. But how can you possibly assume everyone's circumstances based on those gits?

Somebody who is "62+" (a quoted above here) may have had a very carefully worked out plan for their retirement. Why should that be snatched away from them to make way for someone younger who has a whole lifetime ahead of them to make those plans? There are assumptions about what pensions they might have to live off. As wiggy has pointed out, those may not be as rosy as the 'assumer' thinks. I have already pointed out that there is a final salary pension scheme that has had a 35% reduction in payouts; I know that several of the people who will be relying on that money are now in BA, so how well are your assumptions doing on their perceived wealth there? You should all have seen the graph of 'stored vs active' airliners that has put everyone in this mess -- and for those who have forgotten I will repeat it:

Well, if you want to see another 'cliff edge', have a look at this graph of a few pension funds values ending on that same date:


That "62+" year-old that is being vilified here has to rely on that FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE if they are to pack it in now.

By comparison the younger pilots still have a lifetime ahead of them to rectify the situation that they are in now. Should we start making assumptions about how well they will do out of it in the long run? No, let's not stoop to being as low as some who are vilifying the older have stooped.

Everyone is an individual with individual circumstances. Yes, there may be some gits 'at the top'. Just the same as there are some nauseating gits selfishly wanting to push the "62+" out of the way for their own selfish ends.




On another topic, someone said

Remember who the enemy is.

The true enemy is a nasty bug from the east that caused that graph on airliners that I posted above.
If you are forgetting that, you have truly lost the plot on this entire matter.

[cats_five]

Originally Posted by 777JRM

They’ve also had an extra few years of giving half of that to the Treasury.

It was my ambition to earn enough to pay higher rate income tax. Half of something is better than all of nothing