P-T-Gamekeeper - A few selected quotes from you:

Congratulations.
Sounds exactly the reason why I left shorthaul, and given that you don't work for BA currently any comparison between your lifetyle and hers is pretty meaningless in the context of this thread. I'm sure Mrs P-T won't complain when you're force drafted on the weekend of that very important event you both had planned.

I'm not so sure you are joining with your eyes open given your quotes about lifestlye. Are you aware that, according to the BALPA benchmarking group, VS pilots are earning 15% more per hour than BA pilots, yet they are still pushing for a 20% payrise this year?

What fleet are you on HS?

I'm on the 75/6 and I have a great lifestyle. If you are A320 or 777 I might agree with you, but I wouldn't swap for the lifestyle of a lawyer or accountant for all the tea in China.

Well on the holiday fleet you wouldn't understand.:) Five years of time theft at both ends of the day, endless hassle, running round like a blue-arsed fly after aircraft all day and the general endless bollox of LHR meant I was glad to leave the 320.

And therein lies the usual problem... Too many disparate (or do I mean desperate? he he) groups, each with their own entirely different agendas.

Probably pensions is the only thing that would ever unite MOST of us in a single cause.


As an aside, I am amazed at the some of the sniping from other (non BA) pilots. Surely all professional pilots on this BB are agreed that the T&Cs throughout our industry have gone south over the past 10/20 years? Shouldn't you all be wanting us to get the best T&Cs possible, to help drive the rest of the market upwards? Roll on the predicted pilot shortage, I say!

OK, some of our T and C's have gone south, but then so have so many others in so many other jobs. That's not to say we shouldn't fight for them, but we should be realistic about it. I wouldn't swap for a job with an American carrier - as the "fighting" for their terms and conditions has caused some of the problems they have, which in turn erode their T and C's massively when the need to keep heads above water arises. Look at United's pension problem for instance, I wouldn't swap for that.

BA Pension nightmare
 

According to some of the Captains and F/Os, they would be more than happy for BirdSeed Airways to go bankrupt.

Who would accept their employer 'laundering' pension contributions and then saying that their pension scheme is being altered (to suit the company) and the expected final payout will be up to 45% less than expected! It dosent matter who the employer is - its the principle. Its not the employees fault that things didnt go according to plan in the financial scheme of things. They paid in faithfully and kept their part of the contractural agreement. However if the company, led by the ever charismatic Captain Willie 'Wonka' Walsh continues to imply that 'thats the way it is - take it or leave it', then brace yourself for a long, hot summer yet again...

Story is that a new aircraft order is imminent. Maybe the money should have been diverted elsewhere. Thing is, without the flt/cbn crew and the ground support staff, lots of shiny new B777-326ERs are useless... Nice one Willie:ok:

Of course even in the financial dire straits that the American carriers are in the pilots at the majors still earn far more than us in the UK whilst flying fewer hours and thats after the reductions in their Ts&Cs. It's all relative.

Of course its all relative - but in real terms the American guys have lost a huge percentage of their wages and pensions.

If you had been an earner of their wages, and had lived the lifestyle that allowed, then had it taken away, or severely curtailed it would be pretty bad.

Those who come into aviation with the hope of earning the salary of a senior partner in a law firm are entering the business with their eyes shut. Those entering the profession with more realistic expectations will be happier.

Those realistic expectations should include a decent pension - and the things promised at interview. These include a final salary pension for NAPS people, and and "industry leading" defined contribution scheme for the BARP people. that is why it is worth a strike. Striking because we are not paid the same as a law partner or GP is not and is misguided in my opinion.

I feel for the many, many pilots in the USA laid off, out of work or suffering massive reductions in pay/pensions.

Two points though, BA makes money whereas I believe only South West does so in the USA, and it could be argued, given the eye watering salaries that were previously earned, that it was the egg which helped kill the golden goose.

The above is said without feelings of envy or joy.

That is pretty much how I feel, hence my suggestion of the need to be reasonable.

A reasonable solution to the problem will have a reasonable outome.

An unreasonable solution will precipitate a strike. Simple.

I've no dog in the fight so to speak but ornithopter has pretty much nailed it.
Everyone talking about striking etc - I'd suggest you spend a few days talking with your age group who are not pilots.
Pilots remind me of nothing as much as professional athletes. A combination of skills, luck and mostly perserverance has gotten you to the "bigs". Your job isn't like the rest of us and your pay isn't either. Like most athletes you'd do it for free but thankfully some one pays you do what you've always wanted. Deep down inside there is that fear that someday someone is going to twig to how much was luck and your really aren't that special.
Get outside your little clique and you are going to find a really rude world out there. It's changed. Want to really scare yourself. Pick up a paper and see what you can get outside of flying with your current skills. A lot of people are in that situation. Try finding a job where being average on the annual evaluation gets you a guaranteed pay rise every year.
The biggest mistake you can make is not recognizing what’s happening out there. Work to get a reasonable deal for today’s world and you'll come out OK. The biggest thing you've got going for you is BA is making money. Screw with that and you'll screw yourself.
20driver

PS – You are not irreplaceable – don’t even think it.

Actually I wouldn't do the job if it wasn't well paid, any more than a barrister or a surgeon probably wouldn't.

I would go back to my previous profession where I earned around 75% of what I earn now with nowhere near the responsibility, jetlag and days away from home.

As it was so easy to get to where I am now I could always come back to it.

Who was it that said "The more I practice the luckier I get"?

But most pilots and cabin crew know full well that they are "stuck" with an airline and that after a few years they're not really employable elsewhere. Money is understandably THE incentive, but the actual job never changes unlike other professions where you develop and move into new areas.

I suppose the thread is really about crews who know full well that the golden age is over and that something has to give - and that they will have to change.

"Stuck" with an airline? Have you missed the large recruitment campaigns by Etihad, Emirates, Easyjet, Ryanair, Qatar Airways Air India, SIA and BA? Pilots are highly employable elsewhere but in most cases the cost of changing employer means its not worthwhile. That, for the benefit of 20driver, is why being average on the annual evaluation gets you a guaranteed pay rise every year, because if that didn't happen those highly employable staff would be changing employer every other year.

As for the actual job never changing, well it certainly changed when I went from flying high frequency short haul flights in Europe to long haul flights worldwide in a different aircraft type. When I get bored with that I'll probably go for a command ona different aircraft type with another change. Perhaps going into training could be an option. Or, God forbid, management. Plenty of variety here, unlike say medicine or law where all you do is spend your career doing boring old medicine or law.:=

20 Driver - as HS alludes, I think if you look at the imminent market forces, ie massive lack of pilots world wide, then pay and T&C elsewhere can only rise. Let's imagine WW messes with the pensions and virtually simultaneously Emirates or Ethihad open a London base - there would be no need to strike would there?
:ok:

20driver - you may agree with my sentiment about other jobs, but please don't tar me with your brush. I would have flown aircraft for nothing a few years ago, and still would in the right circumstance (eg flying a light aircraft to give people a ride, for disabled children etc), however, I wouldn't do it COMMERCIALLY for nothing. If you do that, all you are doing is letting rich people get richer at your expense. I need to pay the mortgage somehow and spending my time flying without earning money won't do that.

The key here is whether we are being exploited or not. I don't think for one minute that if we were flying humanitarian flights that anyone would be looking to make a stand. What we are looking at here, is hard working people, earning money for an employer, who then wants to take away a promised reward. If BA were about to go bust - different story. If BA were on the edge of profitability - different story. If other groups in BA were as lean and hard working as us - different story. The fact is that BA has wastage in plenty of areas that could be better controlled. Despite that, it is a very profitable company. Why should our promised deferred pay be taken from us, when BA are a profitable company and can afford, at least, to give us a fair, reasonable deal?

Sean - if Etihad opened a base at LHR, it wouldn't have that much affect on BA. They could only take a handful of pilots in comparison to BA's total, so the dent wouldn't be sufficient to change conditions much. Secondly, if people did go to another airline, it would be a fairly fast thing, wheras changing conditions is not. We would have to wait a significant time for things to change and by that time irreversible damage may have been done to the pension, hence the need to fight now!

In my view the changes made to the pension must be reversible.

Hand Solo I thought that it was Gary Player, the South African golfer but I now see it attributed to Arnold Palmer (USA) “It's a funny thing, the more I practice the luckier I get”

ornithopter - nice post, but:

Because WW thinks that dealing with a split BALPA full of rowing Nigels who are life committed to a seniority list is like taking candy from a baby.

Fair??? Reasonable deal?? Boo hooo, you better get 100% united pretty quick and toughen yourselves up!! This is classic union busting, not a sunday school cake sale.

He once said dealing with IALPA was like clubbing baby seals, as it turned out his club wasn't big enough for the daddy Walrus he created!!!

His motivation? Not the money or bonuses, for him it's a game, a sport.

Like Predator.

That rather depends upon which ones they take....

Suvarnabhumi - fair enough, but isn't that part of what this thread is about?

I reckon this is the most united we have been for ages. Ok, there are new bods in BARP, but not all that many and the APS guys are probably alright. But the main body of us pilots are in NAPS and we do have some pressure to bear - we'll see what happens. WW didn't get away with some of the more unreasonable stuff he wanted to do in Lingus, so lets hope he doesn't manage it in BA. Reasonable stuff is needed, no doubt though.

Human Factor - you are of course right, but I doubt we will be in that position any time soon. How many pilots would someone like Etihad take? 40 from mixed fleets? That could be accommodated with a few tactical cancellations and force draft. Not a good or desirable position to be in, but its nothing the company aren't used to.

I see your point, ornithopter but consider if 40 777 captains jumped ship at the same time, for example. The operation would come to pieces. In principle, this isn't as outlandish as it may seem as a few senior guys could jump early to protect whatever pension they currently have.

Practically though, it would require a lot of coincidences:

BA being prepared to risk everything to railroad pension changes on the pilots; Etihad/Emirates/whoever being in a position to open a London base at around the same time; slots becoming available at LHR/LGW for these companies to justify expansion.

Certainly the latter would only happen if BA was prepared to risk everything and their bluff was called, in which case there would be a lot more than 40 pilots from BA available..... :eek:

ornithopterThat probably means that he won what he expected to win. Not nice but then, CEOs of PLCs are not supposed to be.

To clarify - by luck I meant getting the job - right place at the right time etc.
I don't like to fly with or be behind "lucky" pilots - Luck has a bad habit of running out.
I like the idea of well paid, well rested pilots who have the security to say no to dispatchers etc. My point is don't become like so many of the ALPA pilots (PATCO controllers?) over here who were just so convinced that that the world would grind to a halt if they did not get what they wanted. My suggestion was take a reality check with the rest of the world because like it or not we are all in a global labor market.
20driver

And what about those of us in BA who rightly/wrongly couldn't afford the pension on joining, so have had a private one instead, and now are being hard-pressed by the company to yet again offer more significant savings in terms of productivity etc to pay out this crisis ???

Pensions are a minefield whatever the weather - but there aren't many in the UK who are not in the same/worse position in terms of pension outlook, so perhaps some of it will just have to go down to hard luck ? :ugh:

HF - I do know what you mean, but from a management point of view (I am not one by the way), I reckon they will rely upon the fact that the coincidences won't happen. However if 40 777 Capts left, then yes I agree it would be bad for the schedule!

PAXboy - exactly why we should stand up to the pension thing if the response is unreasonable - that way WW can win the things he wants to and not the things we don't want him to!

20driver - fair point, I think we have similar views in places.

Anti - most people are in pension trouble, but if I have 40% on mine taken away, then I reckon I will be one of the worst off in the country in percentage terms. We have to do something, and that will involve a loss to us whichever way you look at it, its how much we lose and for how long that matters.

Haven't we put that argument to bed a few pages ago? Right to work in the EU etc.... ? :confused:

orni Yes, indeed. I am on your side and of others that want to fight for pensions. Whilst it is apparent that pensions have to be adjusted to fit the current and future trading, it should be scaled acros ten or more years. Unfortunately, the CEO (and others) have their bonus's geared year by year and a benefit that is adjusted across ten years will not make them so much - even if it would be better for the company.

Politicians do the same thing - they cannot think further than doing something NOW that will have (they hope) the right effect to get them re-elected in X years time, irrespective of which is best for the company.

There is a humble charity I know: they failed to adjust a particular charging structure by a small amount each year and then had to make a massive adjustment in one go and, at a stroke, alienated dozens of their volunteers who were actually delivering what the charity promised it would.

So, once again, I expect that BA will be that silly as to provoke a strike.

And how did we get into this mess in the first place?
 

There is of course one obvious solution to the NAPS pensions crisis - raise the retirement age. So why is this not being explored in more depth? Because our incompetent Government will shortly impose age discrimination legislation without having given industry any notice of the form this legislation will take. I cannot believe that more invective is not being directed at Gordon Brown. He has raided the pensions pot of private industry in order to support massive pay and pension rises for the public sector.
And what is the Government's response to the problem? The Pensions Protection Fund, that will require cash-strapped companies to find ummm... more cash to create an extra insurance fund. How dim-witted is it possible to be?
Surely there is some financially-savvy newpaper editor out there who can publish the fact that this pensions misery for millions of workers in the private sector was created and exacerbated by the Government.

There are some very good newspaper articles, see
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...1/ccjeff11.xml
and
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/busin...686496,00.html

Hope I'm not breaking Pprune rules by posting the URLs

Trouble is, it's just not front page news. I've tried to interest my MP (Alan Keen) in the debate but all I got back from him was an postcard of acknowledgement. I can't see him being very critical of Gordon Brown as his wife Ann Keen (also an MP) is PPS to Brown. They are also both very "keen" on trousering the MP's salary, expenses and pensions - double bubble in fact.

Bits from todays Irish Independant:

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...issue_id=13579

Walsh quit Aer Lingus in January 2005 to prevent accusations of conflict of interest when plans for a management buyout at the airline were torched by the Government. Two months later he was suddenly appointed to replace Rod Eddington as the chief executive of British Airways.

One of the key differences between running the semi-State Aer Lingus and stock market listed British Airways has been the change in the approach of the political community.

"The difference between politics running Aer Lingus and politics running British Airways is that here, you get the politicians asking what they can do for you and in Aer Lingus, it tended to be what can you do for them," he suggests. "I never experienced any direct political interference in how the airline was run. They may have expressed views but they didn't interfere."

Walsh is aiming to transform British Airways profitability, with a target of a 10 per cent operating margin, ahead of the airline's move to the Terminal 5 complex in Heathrow Airport. Despite rampant jet fuel prices, Walsh's arrival at BA has seen the company's share price hit a four-and-a-half-year high recently.

10 per cent operating margin is his goal, he's made his move against the managers, now the Pilots, the rest are next !!!

Interesting comment regarding UK politicians.

Of course they're next ..and they know it.

A small point BA have had 10% as the target since the days of Bob Ayling, they have just not achieved it. To meet this figure which is the boast of SQ and Lufty has to highlight if indeed this figure is viable at the current time. Just around the next corner will be the green fuel tax to deal with?

Word on the street is that we're only £30m away from hitting the 8.5% this year, and the beancounters are desperately trying to find the extra cash from somewhere to trigger the employee bonuses (target for 1 weeks pay is 8.5% this year up from 6% last year, which was acheived).

If you took away the £40m blown because of the ILLEGAL strike, then we'd be well on the way towards the 10% target. Just wait until Willie's cuts have begun to bite and T5 is up and running.

Personally, I don't think we'll strike. Just back from a interesting Canadian slip and the general feeling is that when the crunch comes there won't be the support for a strike. Difficult situation, but one that WW will probably take advantage of. :*

Not so sure about your 8.5%. Nor do I enjoy your confidence with regard to T5. Those that remember the T4 change will know that it will take a number of years to see the real benefits of T5. It is already to small and like the rest of the terminal dumps at LHR will just become a permanent building site. It is reassuring to know Datrkstar had a good time and will not strike.

Darkstar,

I'm inclined to believe an agreement would be reached before it becomes necessary to strike. However, I'm also prepared to strike if necessary. Just one question for you though:

After you've capitulated and ended up on your Career Average Pension, how long do you think the present structure of twenty-four increasing pay points will last before it is converted to a flat rate?

Downroute last week out of 20+ pilots I spoke to over a beer a twelve all were ready to strike over this issue.Having spoken to cabin crew and 3 friends in engineering WW may be taking on one big fight.If he wins he will be the hero of the shareholders who will get their extra divi ,if he lose's he could be a very short term CEO.

WTDWL.

Good idea - doing away with that and seniority, and not only will they pay the market rate, but moving away from the airline will no longer be so penalising.

Of course there is the point on whom gets promoted first to command, but other airlines cope. Why not BA?

Moving away from the airline will not change one iota. No one gets penalised now. Moving to any airline which still has a seniority system will be just as penalising as it is now.