1 Your Pension is part of your terms and conditions. Can a company unilaterally change those without your permission – I think not.
If so it is up to the company to negotiate with you as to what you would accept.
2 The current share price reflects the current pension scheme. Shares in companies are regularly traded so the shareholders are fully aware of the current situation . It might be that the shareholders would be quite prepared to dilute their shareholding to allow current employees to exchange part of their pension for additional new shares on the basis that if the deficit was cleared the returns on the shares would be greater.
Whatever you do, don’t give up your pension for the benefit of others because one thing that you can be sure of is that the directors of the Company have an incentive scheme tied into share price, so reducing your terms and conditions would hugely enrich the directors.

WOW how the mighty fall, hope you guys work it out.

aan,

If you knew what 2/3 of a senior crew pensionable salary was then you would know that your numbers are rubbish.

I'm sorry you are struggling to exist in the real world unlike the "mollycudled" BA pilots, but then .....if it's so great and overpaid etc etc in BA why are not you doing it then?

Oh, and I assume you represent the general public in not giving a damn?...!!!

This thread is about a company renaging on a promise which it can well-afford to keep.

Take your BA un-informed bashing to jetblast please:mad:

Everyone who is argueing over these details are missing the big picture!

WW is just messing with the Unions, it's where he came from, he's doing what he does best, doing what got him the CEO job in Aer Lingus and in BA. And doing what he only knows, but does very well.

He will get something else from you by threatening to take away what he knows is rightfully yours. There will be a negotiated settlement, not a strike.

If he gets even half of what he demands now then he will settle, but that is one BIG half.

100% Pilot unity is the only game in town. Good Luck, you'll need it.

aan

Inaccurate and utter rubbish.

3 ex BA guys here are on £100k plus pensions so it is not so much rubbish!

£100,000 is hardly a large salary these days. Most GP's are close to the figure and most half decent barristers earn well above this figure. The days of pilots being well paid is long gone, especially when you factor in the unsocial hours.

aan/sailor. Guys in APS, the old scheme, may retire on £120k a year but those in NAPS - no chance.

But you are missing the point. We are not living in a dreamworld but a real, benchmarked one in which BA can demonstrably afford to pay for its pensions obligations. If it doesn't - game over. If WW goes on to bash the pilots over bidline etc, he'll be making another mistake there too. We have been messed about for years whilst the rest of BA has gone its own merry way, wasting millions, and the time for all that pilot bashing is over.

Neither I nor my colleagues care a jot what you think, or indeed anyone else when it comes down to it: either BA pays up on pensions, improves BARP for the new joiners and leaves bidline alone, or there wont be a BA - end of story.

Cue howls of rage from the "work for peanuts squad". Suggestion -get off your butts and improve your own lot wherever you work, and we'll get on with defending our contracts meanwhile. Selfish - not a bit of it. I joined on a contract and it will be honoured. Every time BA pilots helped the company out in the past it was pissed back in our faces - every time, (Salary cuts for A320's at birmingham anyone? Oh! I forgot, there aren't any, and so on and on).

Not anymore. our flight ops managers are neither leaders nor managers, just bonus-driven liars, and with the end of credibility comes the long-overdue end of pilot naivety.

Stick together guys - WW has a lot to learn.

sailor

.... and I venture to suggest that those 3 people are in receipt of an APS pension, not a NAPS pension. They probably also served over 30 years and quite possibly had training appointments which would all boost their pensions. Additionally they probably also had the option to crystalise at 50, and then retired on an enhanced deal at 55.

That is not the lot of the vast majority in BA on NAPS, and what the company are likely to propose is some form of career averaging which may take someone's pension from an expected £50,000 to nearer £30,000. Crystalisation is no longer an option and under NAPS the pension is only index-linked to a point, unlike the full indexation of APS.

You really need to understand the facts before you shout from your almighty pulpit.

sky9

As a retired pilot with a paramedic son, I disagree. Most things are relative, and I'm of the view that most airline pilots are still very well paid - and have an enviable on-duty lifestyle (there are exceptions such as the Liverpool freight dogs). And the unsocial hours are more than compensated. I also think that the majority of RAF aircrew (and paramedics) might agree - fancy their 'unsocial' hours on their pay?

PS: - Sorry if I'm repeating sentiments from other posts; haven't read through, just reacting to sky9

Have to agree with Jind.

I cannot quote the numbers, as I am not in BA. However, does anyone disagree with me when I say that from what has been said, guys with 20 to 25 years with the company can expect a pension of GBP60,000 per year at the age of 55? This is what most people aspire to as a professional as their peak earnings, let alone pension. Well that's better than the greedy b*stard MPs voted for themselves and funded by taxes. How on earth can this be funded?

I am not a slagger of BA. Well done if you get that. I did 18 years in the RAF and will get about 10,000 a year from age 55, cast-iron and guaranteed by the Treasury. But for the majority of the industry, 60,000 would be a pay rise or parity on retirement. I wish I'd done worse at school and followed the smarmy git who got chopped at FNT and lucked onto the 747-400 fleet back in '88. He's still a co-pilot, but like the Murphy's, I'm not bitter.

As an open forum anyone can contribute regardless of their knowledge of the subject. However the reality is that this is a BA issue and the usual finger pointing and tut-tutting that usually accompanies a post on PPRuNe is pretty irrelevant.
To those of you who would happily sit back and let your employer change their contractual agreements to you, well more power to you. I can't sit back and let that happen to me. And as you'll see by my profile I'm not flight crew, but this affects almost everyone in BA. As cabin crew I'll get peanuts from my NAPS pension, but I'd rather have three peanuts than two.
To my colleagues at BA, forward these links around to everyone:
http://www.befairba.com
http://www.bacanaffordtopay.com

I was FORCED to take severance three years ago and have 12 years contributions in NAPS, so I get a say.
It used to annoy the hell out of me that a senior captain in his early fifties could spend all his career on shorthaul contributing on a salary of £70k (for arguments sake, don't get me started on cash in hand expenses), then use his high bid status to go long haul, then pay in on say £110k for the final few years and then collect his pension based on this inflated final salary. Please could you show me another group of peolpe working for BA that can do this???
Sky9 Don't even think about saying doctors and lawyers get paid more than pilots. Most of the senior BA captains were the chosen ones, paid to become a pilot and trained in about 18 months, not studied for 5,6,7 years to get degrees whilst NOT getting paid.
It makes me sick

I'd like to be shown any group in BA that can do that because pilots certainly can't. The pensionable pay on short haul and long haul was exactly the same. The only difference in income was due to non-pensionable allowances. Another myth debunked.

Here goes nothing....
 

Leander,
A "back of the fag packet" calculation shows that BA generates about £100 - £120m of cash per year AFTER paying interest and average reinvestment in assets

From this BA has the "choice" of

Pay off some debt, which it does need to do for long term survival
Pay a dividend
Pay towards the deficit

So, in true accountant fashion, the answer is it depends!

If you use all the surplus for the pension,the debt will stay and a £200m interest bill will stay with it. A small downturn could then cripple the company

To do all these BA would need to generate about £400m per year (My guess not BA figures)

sky9 is , unfortunately, one of those who does not live in the real world.

I work for BA, I work hard, I get paid well for my experience and responsibilities but this issue is about downgrading my Ts & Cs.

If those criticising care to remove their green tinted spectacles they might understand why we are so incensed.

Come on....to try and compare BA Pilots with Doctors and Lawyers et al is false and misleading.

Just imagine if your GP only worked 900 hours a year max? My brother is a doctor in London, he often works 70hrs a week, plus he is on call and is paid a pittance compared to me and all I do is, lets be honest now, enjoy a few decents night stops and fill in the crossword at FL370.

I'm not happy about the pension situation, but many BA FC choose to have the pension and hours of a doctor or lawyer??:hmm:

Yep I was paid to train as a pilot whilst on the cadet scheme - £30 per week for 18 months.

Oh and I studied for a degree for 3 years.

Oh and the job I was left was better paid, a couple of my mates still working for my old firm have 6 figure salaries where the first digit is a 2, and they're in their early thirties.

This whole thread is about BA trying to change the terms of our contracts when they can afford to pay, I am not prepared to fund new aircraft and not prepared to prop up other departments that haven't contributed to cost cutting to the same degree as we have. FFS we even funded the flight engineers redundency package a couple of years ago - yep that's right the pilots paid up for it when the company wasn't prepared to. Right now they can f**k off if they want anymore.

BB

Good post BB. However I am quite happy to have my pay compared to a doctor. I'll make a PA tonight asking if theres a doctor on board and if one responds I'll go and have a seat in the cabin and let him land the aircraft. Lets see how overpaid they think I am then.:E

BTW last time I checked the requirements for becoming a lawyer were three years at uni (largely memoriing stuff, not a technically difficult course) followed by a year at law college followed by a couple of years professional training on a rather good salary. Hardly a demanding career path.

What you've got to appreciate is that there is a hierarchy in all professions. If your brother is working those hours I guess he's a junior house man (can't remember exact title?), but his hours and pay doesn't compare to my ex's brother who is one of the top surgeons (knees and hips) in the North East. Likewise a lawyer working out of grotty basement under a bookmakers in Peckham won't be earning the same as the Senior Partner for Mergers in Norton Rose/Linklaters etc.

In aviation this heirarchy exists with the self improver hour builder/insrtuctor at one end and the BA long haul training Capt at the other end. The thing I don't understand is that within aviation there are so many green eyed monsters staring up the food chain and mouthing off - what they should be doing is climbing the branches and be happy that the BA pilots are not contributing to the downward pressure on Ts and Cs on our profession - that's the job of the Accountants.

BB

Hand

Debunking myths is all well and good. I personally have no axe to grind here and have respectfully read some of your earlier posts on other threads and agree with a lot of what you say. I am an ex-mil chap in his mid-forties and concur that BA is no place for the likes of me anymore. That's history. But to you, do you think you will get the pension you signed up for when you joined? And if they take it away, or try to reduce it, what are you going to do?
Ages ago I said that the new joiners would not support NAPS guys and a two tier system was being created. Those close to retirement have loyalty only to themselves and their families. The new joiners have no loyalty to those who failed to protect the new joiners. Unpleasant, but you reap what you sow.

Having said all that, all around me, everyday, I see those less fortunate than me.

So I put it in perspective. Wasn't Narnia bloody crap?

Sorry, cr@p. But cracking visuals, Grommit.

Monty77

Well said. I am genuinely ashamed and aghast that the new joiners pension vote went that way but some people are just plain myopic. This needs to be rectified and is part of our demands - that the BARP contributions are upped.

BB

Bucking - You're spot on, he is a 'junior' Houseman and is studying to become an ENT specialist, but has to work the hours to become established and obviously become a 'specialist'. We were together at Christmas and discussing the pro and cons of both being FC and a DR, to be honest there aren't too many cons with an office at M0.85 except the usual Bidline gripes and of course the pension debate, but I felt a little contrite after he dozed off through exhaustion (rather than being bored rigid about some crap hotac in EWR).

I accept the Pension is a serious issue, but I'm not blinkered enough to see that the general public perceive BA FC and CC to be overpaid and underused, personally, I can see little, if any, public support.

I hope I'm wrong though....:rolleyes:

Stop comparing apples with oranges. Just imagine if my GP worked 70 hours a week, plus he is on call, and screws up. He's only going to kill one person instead of a couple of hundred, plus himself, plus whoever the wreckage lands on.

You obviously don't know too many long haul pilots.

Get a grip.

What a bunch of spoilt babies the BA pilots, cabin crew and engineers are! (With some notable exceptions). As soon as they come across something they don't like, they threaten to go on strike! Pathetic.

Nearly everyone in the world has problems,few of them as minor as BA staff's problems. Strike if you want, but you will have to accept the consequences, which are that you'll be tarred with the same brush as others you probably don't respect that much. The public will think you are a bunch of wasters, and the management will be CERTAIN that you are a bunch of wasters.

As you are NOT a bunch of wasters (which is sincerely what I hope and believe), for heavens sake stop being stupid and cut out the strike threat. It makes you look like spoilt brats.

Riverboat you show an understanding of the issues way beyond your 5 years of age, if you manage to give up your dummy then one day you will be king.

Tar comes off with white spirit, Riverboat. I'll take the chance of insults like yours to protect my investment in my family's future.

Your posting says more about you than you might have realised!

Jet A1 We Shamrock pilots went on strike because 7 of our colleagues were suspended for refusing to operate to newly imposed (NOT negotiated) working conditions. We went on strike for one day (a Friday) and were subsequently locked out when we reported for work on Saturday. We returned to work the following Tuesday following a negotiated settlement. We lost one days pay, got the June bank holiday weekend off, the magnificent 7 were reinstated and we kept the vast majority of our conditions in the negotiations. Willie on the other hand cost the company about 8 million, did not get to "club us like baby seals" (Willie`s view of dealing with IALPA) and lost serious face as he had advised the Chairman that we would not strike.

Do you still think Willie won ?

Stick to your guns boys and girls - an airline can operate without a CX as we have proved - but it wont if its pilots are on strike.:ok:

900 hours 'work' is SUCH DISINFORMATION & MISLEADING. If you do not understand the differnece between FTLs, Flying hours, duty hours etc

On average we (both SH & LH) work about 2,500 hours at work, away from home, per annum. Do you think we get teleported into and out of the flightdeck ..?

PS 2,500 hrs pa divded by 48 weeks at work = 52 hrs/week. Anybody in Waterworld work that ?

Then add onto that: multiple & compouding time zone changes, time away from your home, your wife, your children your life can be awkward at times.

Please dont compare a GPs home every night 'extended office' hours to mine.

I have been following this with interest for a while, as I will be a Nigel next month. I find the comparisons with lawyers interesting, as Mrs P-T-G is a lawyer in a big London law firm, whose renumeration package is up there with the best.
1. Pensions
The BARP is not great, but having crunched the numbers, I come up with a pension of @£35000 at 60. The company contribution from my wifes firm is less than that on BARP, so all the "Fantastic Lawyer Pension" stuff is tripe.
2. Lifestyle
She leaves the house at 7.30 and returns between 7 & 9 every night, working weekends when required. She is expected to work unpaid overtime when required by the company, and not doing so would be career ending. She is constantly knackered. and would swap for my lifestyle in a second.
3. Strike
Striking should be a weapon of desperation, not a stick to beat employers with. I want to have a job with BA for the foreseeable future, and a strike ridden airline will not be around then. This applies to managers as well, who need not to push people into corners where they feel they have no other choice.

All in all, I am joining BA with my eyes wide open. Yes, the pension is a big issue, but to the "You knew the deal when you joined" brigade, I was not able to negotiate my own T's & C's, as that is down to Balpa. The company has issues, but in my view, it is still the best deal in the marketplace. Would I strike over the pension? Probably not, if the changes requested were fair and balanced.

BALPA v IALPA
 

An interesting excercise might be to compare the performance of BALPA and IALPA in dealing with the Walshe agenda/style.
Note: there was a Walshe attack on the IALPA - Aer Lingus pilot pension agreement, but it failed.

Exactly, BALPA can learn alot from IALPA on how they restricted the wrath of WW. :ok:

I think if BA are foolish enough to let it get that far, you've hit the nail on the head.

It's time to sit this one out and wait to see what actually happens, especially as a strike will not prevent a certain degree of changes happening anyway! I see a lot of shortsightedness on this forum and am amazed at the number of flight crews who cannot see the changing face of air travel;I'm sorry to burst your bubble world. In a recent meeting the overall consensus was that the flight and cabin crew pay and productivity really needs to be monitored - and no, crews don't like the thought of working harder for their allowances.

WW has major plans for BA ( I work "inside") - much to the disdain of the workers - and it means middle management cuts and flight/cabin crews facing up to slow, but needed pay and conditions restructuring.Pay itself will not mean a crew member having a change in their basic, for example, but it will mean certain generous "extras" will be phased out.
As we all know the LGW plan is Chapter 1, but Chapter 2 is only a few pages away.
The underlining issue that all BA staff should not lose sight of the company's worringly poor (actually, out of control) pension deficit and all hands are needed to rectify it for the company's future success.

WW did indeed attempt to attack both the pilots pension fund and that of the general employees (which is also lumped in with that of the Irish airport operaters and SR Technics - formerly known as Team Aer Lingus). Both of these funds are Defined Benefit. WW tried to change them to Target Defined Benefit. The Chair of the Pensions Board of Ireland requested a definition as they had never heard of this type of pension. WW failed to give a definition, surprise surprise !

You must be referring to the Cabin Crew, purr777, as no such things appear on my pay statement.

BA pilots no longer have a complicated allowance structure. All extra pay is structured the same, regardless of trip length. This represents a cost saving to BA compared with the more complicated structure it replaced.

BALPA, I believe, wanted everything to go on basic pay, but it was BA itself which insisted on having some variable elements.

All BA staff 'hands' are not needed to rectify BA's pension deficit, that's BA's job. The purpose of this thread is to help de-bunk the misinformation being put about by BA. Enjoy the latte whilst it lasts! ;)

At the risk of being shot down in a flaming inferno, I would like to raise a few points. I am a member of BARP and BALPA. I have the utmost sympathy for my colleagues in NAPS. As a member of BARP I would gladly look forward to any of the 'career-averaged' pensions as outlined in a recent BALPA newsletter.Why did BALPA and the BALPA membership allow the BARP, in its present pitiful form, to be brought in? Anything to do with a very confusing ballot paper combined with a poor membership response? BARP membership is growing for obvious reasons. Union solidarity is vitally inportant to maintain a strong negotiating position. But there seems very little mention/publicitly of the plight of the BARP membership. Why then, should the BARP members be so thoroughly and unconditionally supportive of the union on this issue????

Dons flack vest......

You don't need to be and most likely are not really interested in the plight of NAPS. It was completely unrealistic to expect NAPS members to go down the path of industrial action to bring yet to be employed people into NAPS. It just wasn't going to happen, short sighted, as that could possibly be argued, that it was.

At the moment the support or otherwise of BARPS members will be inconsequential. That will obviously change in years to come but by then robber Brown will probably have finished screwing private pensions completely anyway.


From a previous post saying that much will be changing in other areas, that I can understand. I agree it is probably inevitable but I am at a loss to see anywhere within the FC arena where anything truly dramatic could change (I can see some areas but nothing that would stop me wanting to do the job for BA).

I am not convinced that other departments could say the same.

Sid - If you watch the BALPA DVD, they tell you again and again that this is about BARP too - they want a good pension for you guys as well - as indeed do I and all our colleagues.

When it came to voting about a strike, there wasn't much we could do realistically. Most big companies have closed their final salary schemes and striking would have made more trouble than it solved. We were quite horribly short of pilots even if the management don't agree. We were at risk of losing slots if things got any worse.

That's not to say I don't support you - BA lied when they employed you by saying that you would get an "industry leading pension". THAT is worth striking over, but the fact that the pension changed is an unfortunate product of the current climate.

In the same respect, the fact that NAPS will change too, is a product of the current environment. We will have to do <something> to change NAPS to get rid of the shortfall. In fact we will be forced to by the pensions regulator. A strike would be valuable to make those changes fair, reversible and sensible. If BA's solution was those things, there would be no need to strike, as in the situation above. If BA's solution is unfair (career average, money purchase etc) then striking is a fair and reasonable thing to do.

I think that is what this is really all about. Comparing us to doctors, lawyers etc is moot. Making a descision about NAPS that is fair and realistic and reversible is important and if it takes a strike, that is what it takes. Hopefully it won't come to that. Watch this space.