View Poll Results: Would YOU take industril action if your Pension Scheme were endangered?
Yes
75
94.94%
No
4
5.06%
Voters: 79. This poll is closed
Final Solution to Final Salary Pensions??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Jellystone Park
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final Solution to Final Salary Pensions??
Here in BACE, about a third of our pilots, not to mention a lot of non aircrew, are in a final salary pension scheme. This scheme was closed to new joiners by the management with no negotiation, or even advance warning late last year.A valuation is approaching, can't be good news, and the Company refuses to assure us of their commitment to the scheme's safe continuation. I think they underestimate the amount of trouble even 250 pilots out of 650 can cause if they think they can get away with closing it or trying to make us pay more for it.
Any other Airlines out there who have Final Salary schemes under threat - what are YOU doing about protecting YOUR scheme, maybe we can learn something.
Last edited by Cornflake; 26th Aug 2002 at 22:13.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final salary schemes (or money purchase) are only worthwhile if you stay until you retire, so are you still going to be with BACE at age 55 (60?). If not just make alternative provision and do as most other guys are doing and look for something better........
PP
ps Older pilots will do whatever they can to retain final salary schemes (or take ER if offered) but younger pilots wont do much at all.................the usual story. Many in BACE will move on as the market picks up.
PP
ps Older pilots will do whatever they can to retain final salary schemes (or take ER if offered) but younger pilots wont do much at all.................the usual story. Many in BACE will move on as the market picks up.
Last edited by Pilot Pete; 27th Aug 2002 at 01:24.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I shall have to think a little more about this one...
I already feel that my company thinks of me as just another number rather than a valued asset. I am right at the start of my career so if they tried to take the FS scheme from me now I would probably accept it and then leave ASAP. The fact that they were trying to take it away from me would just be the final straw - proving that they really do not give a monkeys about my well-being within the company. It is not something I would want to fight to protect by striking, because even if we won, I would not want to work for such a company. (Besides, you could be sure they would have another bash at it a few years later!)
I think it would be a different story if I had been working for the company for 10 years or more. Then I would stand my ground and fight... and I would certainly strike if it came to it. Saying that, if things continue the way they are in my company, I will not be hanging around any longer than 5 years anyway!
So I have not voted because it all depends upon the company's timing...
I already feel that my company thinks of me as just another number rather than a valued asset. I am right at the start of my career so if they tried to take the FS scheme from me now I would probably accept it and then leave ASAP. The fact that they were trying to take it away from me would just be the final straw - proving that they really do not give a monkeys about my well-being within the company. It is not something I would want to fight to protect by striking, because even if we won, I would not want to work for such a company. (Besides, you could be sure they would have another bash at it a few years later!)
I think it would be a different story if I had been working for the company for 10 years or more. Then I would stand my ground and fight... and I would certainly strike if it came to it. Saying that, if things continue the way they are in my company, I will not be hanging around any longer than 5 years anyway!
So I have not voted because it all depends upon the company's timing...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In my own head.........
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U/S down the line......
I've been here for nearly ten years, and I would be MUCH more attentive to unserviceable aircraft at remote destinations if they propose that I lose my scheme, or pay more. I like the Regional lifestyle, the money is adequate, and thanks to BALPA, getting better still. I just hope BALPA have their eye on this ball.
From what I've been told by others, if the management were to mess with the pension, there would be such an expression of bad feeling that the Company would find out very quickly about REALLY cancelling a lot of flights.
From what I've been told by others, if the management were to mess with the pension, there would be such an expression of bad feeling that the Company would find out very quickly about REALLY cancelling a lot of flights.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Wouldn't you like to know !
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody out!!!!!
It is probably the ONLY thing that would guarantee my presence on a picket line. I've only got five years in, but I have no intention of giving up my pension rights!!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: LTN, UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately many companies (not just travel related) seem to be closing their Final Salary Schemes.
Also read that the UK is the only EU country that has such schemes and the EU is considering making them illegal!
Also read that the UK is the only EU country that has such schemes and the EU is considering making them illegal!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In these days of uncertainty - many companies going belly-up - everyone who talks of striking to keep their final salary pension should bear in mind that money purchase schemes are far safer than final salary.
If, say BA, went bust, their FS scheme is in massive deficit and will rely on the company to bail it out in the future - eg: no company - no pension bail out.
However if you have a MP scheme, all that pot belongs to only you and is safe if the company goes belly-up.
The main argument for FS schemes is that the company puts in money as well - there is nothing to stop any company paying into a MP scheme but due to the obsession with FS schemes the unions and have not pushed this option.
I beleive that the sooner we get away from FS schemes and everyone has a fully portable MP scheme that companies can also contribute to, everyone will benefit - the individual by having a guaranteed pension entitlement and the company by having fixed pension contributions that are easy to forcast into the future.
If, say BA, went bust, their FS scheme is in massive deficit and will rely on the company to bail it out in the future - eg: no company - no pension bail out.
However if you have a MP scheme, all that pot belongs to only you and is safe if the company goes belly-up.
The main argument for FS schemes is that the company puts in money as well - there is nothing to stop any company paying into a MP scheme but due to the obsession with FS schemes the unions and have not pushed this option.
I beleive that the sooner we get away from FS schemes and everyone has a fully portable MP scheme that companies can also contribute to, everyone will benefit - the individual by having a guaranteed pension entitlement and the company by having fixed pension contributions that are easy to forcast into the future.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you may be faced with an airline going out of business and closing it's pension scheme for good. If this does happen I urge you to take independant professional advice. My company scheme closed and the managers poposed to buy everyone a deferred anuity unless they made their own arrangements to take a transfer out. A deferred anuity probably wasn't the best option for many people in the scheme.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet II do your homework, final salary scemes are far superior, the company is responsible for financing a fixed benefit not simply a contribution to a fund. If the company winds up a FS scheme it must fully fund it before doing so, this fund is independant of the company. If the company goes bust then the fund is used to benefit the pensioners pro rata. Existing pensioners are protected by the ombudsman.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriph
If you bothered to read my post you will see that I agree that at the moment FS schemes are superiour, but only because no push has been made to get companies to contribute in a meaningful way to MP schemes.
I agree that if a company 'volunatarily' winds up a FS scheme it must fully fund it but as I said in my post if the scheme is in deficit and the company goes bust, the pensioners will lose out.
If there is a shortfall after a company goes bust the existing pensioners get as much as they are entitled, if there are funds available in the scheme. But anyone in the scheme who is not retired could lose all their entitlement.
If you look at the case of Cardiff-based Allied Steel and Wire - you will see exactly what I mean, the poor soles at that company lost their jobs and their pensions. I beleive that the TUC and the government are looking into ways of protecting pensioners and pensioners to be, but any legislation is a long way down the road.
If you bothered to read my post you will see that I agree that at the moment FS schemes are superiour, but only because no push has been made to get companies to contribute in a meaningful way to MP schemes.
I agree that if a company 'volunatarily' winds up a FS scheme it must fully fund it but as I said in my post if the scheme is in deficit and the company goes bust, the pensioners will lose out.
If there is a shortfall after a company goes bust the existing pensioners get as much as they are entitled, if there are funds available in the scheme. But anyone in the scheme who is not retired could lose all their entitlement.
If you look at the case of Cardiff-based Allied Steel and Wire - you will see exactly what I mean, the poor soles at that company lost their jobs and their pensions. I beleive that the TUC and the government are looking into ways of protecting pensioners and pensioners to be, but any legislation is a long way down the road.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you work on the premise that your company is going to go bust JetII then what is worthwhile? MP schemes are at present almost worthless and require huge sums to make them worthwhile, there is no requirement for the company to ensure a adequate retirement income, only to put as little as they can into your pot.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course I do not 'work on the premise that your company is going to go bust' but then again I'm sure that the unfortunates at Sabena, Swissair, Pan Am, Branniff, Enron, Worldcom etc, etc. etc. didn't either.
All I am saying is that companies in todays volatile markets are carring an awful lot of debt and many have huge black holes in their pension schemes - I am sure that we will see more companies go down and take their employees pensions with them.
All I am saying is that companies in todays volatile markets are carring an awful lot of debt and many have huge black holes in their pension schemes - I am sure that we will see more companies go down and take their employees pensions with them.
Mistrust in Management
Seriph
If a FSS is very badly underfunded, (such as BA's NAPS for instance) and the company goes bust, then those who are in retirement are looked after before a penny piece is allocated to those who 'were' in employment. That is set in law, although there have been calls for the law to be amended.
So in the possible case of BA going bust it is very likely that those currently in employment would only recieve a very small proportion of their contributions returned, if anything at all.
So Money Purchase schemes do have the advantage of security in that nobody else can benefit from your contributions.
Regards
Exeng
So in the possible case of BA going bust it is very likely that those currently in employment would only recieve a very small proportion of their contributions returned, if anything at all.
So Money Purchase schemes do have the advantage of security in that nobody else can benefit from your contributions.
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the company goes bust!! It depends on the funding of the sheme at the time. If it is fully funded then all would get the full pension entitlement for their length of service, if not then pro rata. It is up to the trustees to monitor contributions and funding. But of course, I and the rest of the world might be wrong in trying to save FS schemes!! If you want a decent pension from a MP scheme you need a very large sum of money and hope that annuity rates are better than the current 3% or so. There is no minimum company contribution, some contribute as little as 3%, they are not required to ensure a worthwhile pension only give as little as they can get away with, and of course Gordon Brown can rob with impunity, the company doesn't have to make up the difference.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Wouldn't you like to know !
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See - It CAN be done!
CAPARO!!!!
This is a Company which closed its final salary scheme to EXISTING members. It has just had to eat crow, following industrial action, and abandon the proposals. These schemes CAN be continued, regardless of the cost-saving intentions of Boards of Directors.
This is a Company which closed its final salary scheme to EXISTING members. It has just had to eat crow, following industrial action, and abandon the proposals. These schemes CAN be continued, regardless of the cost-saving intentions of Boards of Directors.
FS schemes have traditionally been better for the employee. But times are changing. FS schemes are very expensive for a company whose management of the funds has not been as efficient or as lucrative as anticipated - or raided by the company! Those FS schemes which are still in existence will be cut back, very few FS schemes will be on offer in the future.
The MP scheme is the future despite the lower returns. Efforts need to be made to get the MP schemes in existance as benficial as possible - and to attempt to proof them as much as possible from the periodic downturns in the fiancial markets and the 'inneficient' (dishonest in some cases) way they are managed.
I for one would be very nervous if my pension was held by a company whose pension fund shortfall exceeded the value of the company. BA......ooooer!
The MP scheme is the future despite the lower returns. Efforts need to be made to get the MP schemes in existance as benficial as possible - and to attempt to proof them as much as possible from the periodic downturns in the fiancial markets and the 'inneficient' (dishonest in some cases) way they are managed.
I for one would be very nervous if my pension was held by a company whose pension fund shortfall exceeded the value of the company. BA......ooooer!
