BA have simply had approval from the trustees, that their proposal will solve the deficit to their satisfaction. Nothing more.

BA still have to get it past the unions, and that just isn't going to happen.

So eventually, BA will have to go back to the trustees with another proposal, and the trustees will approve that one instead.

It is unfortunate that BA did not go to the trustees with BALPA's proposal, because they will have to go through the process all over again now - and possibly with strikes in the interim.

Either way, the BALPA proposal will be submitted to the trustees at some point, because we ain't budging.

I'd say we're pretty close now.

Not much more to squeeze out of BA before BALPA's latest proposals will be acceptable (if not completely palatable) to all. Another £150m (say) on top of what BA have already offered or a strike which could cost an awful lot more. Probably even the threat of a strike might cost £150m so they might as well just pay up.

The sticking block here is likely to be that if the pilots expect to now retire at 60 without further penalty, other TUs might expect the same. I guess the phraseology should have been how long all workers will have to extend their working life for; putting it in those terms makes the playing field sound a lot more level.

Anyway, both sides will claim success of course, but in real terms our T&Cs will have been eroded significantly yet again. Nothing we could have done about it, of course, and a valiant and successful rearguard campaign has been fought by BALPA.

All we can do when the dust finally settles is finally chuck this government out at the next election and explain why to the doorstep canvassers.

Roll on the promised pilot shortage!

"C'mon lads, the deals not that bad."

"The trustees have approved it, the deals done."

"Striking would be the end of Balpa in BA".

"Better to have some NAPS than none at all"

Aren't those comments very similar to what BALPA said BA management would say to win us over? Well if you're reading or posting on this thread, it ain't working boys. Spirits are high and we'll fight you all the way.

Beaver - I believe the wording was "a 5 year increase to IRD for all groups". Sounds equitable to me.

Sadly BA's statement in their press release today saidI agree it would be equitable, but will others see it as such?

BALPA still has much work to do (with our solid support, I might add) but I believe the goalposts have widened this afternoon.

British Airways buys American's 1% stake in Iberia
 

'LONDON (MarketWatch) -- British Airways Plc said it's bought American Airlines remaining 1% stake in Iberia for 19 million euros ($24 million). The move takes BA's total share holding from 9% to 10%. The transaction is intended to preserve British Airways' two seats on the Iberia board, it said.'

There goes the spare change. Hope they are nice seats.

Beaver - BALPAs proposal said increase IRD by 5 years for everyone. I believe that is equitable. BAs proposal is an insult as far as I am concerned, and I don't really care if other TUs don't like BALPAs proposal. We may get some qualified support from TGWU/BASSA but we've always expected to be in this fight alone and we'll stand alone if need be.

Amen to that, but I'm just trying to point out that the BA spin machine will probably do it's usual divide and conquer thing.

Talking of which, there's still the little matter of the company's BARP contributions for our 400 or so colleagues to sort out.

CM

We all have something to lose it's just that pilots have the most to lose.

Many of us on the ground are right behind you.:ok:

TURIN,

You help us, we'll help you. ;)

Guys,
Management think we wont strike, I got that straight from the horse's mouth today. They are feeling very complacent and enjoying playing with people's lives. Honestly, word for word thats what I heard today. :eek:

They reckon we all have way too much to lose and, apparently, we pilots are 'loving it' as regards the change of retirement age, as it seems many are choosing to stay one at the moment, and - as everyone knows - pilots dont leave this company. :ugh:

Tis true, folks at waterside (management and staff alike) aren't too concerned about a strike. Agreement with the Trustee was seen as the bigger issue, as any strike post-agreement, (and the prospect of regulators stepping in), has more downside risk to the pilots than the company. Plus it seems highly unlikely the company would have made this announcement without some expectation that the unions would agree to it with only minor changes (at most).

The downside means I'd end up having to retire at 65 with a cr@p pension.

What have I got to lose by striking then? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Well, the thought is that a strike would result in a reduction in the financial health of the company. The regulators would be forced to step in and it would be unlikely they would force an agreement substantially different from the one that was agreed to with the trustees...and possibly they would allow the company to change some of the agreement in its favour given the reduction in financial health (the downside part).

That's just the thought process. I'm not saying whether or not it's a realistic one. But I do agree great expectation, folks generally believe there will be no strike and that the deal announced today will largely be the final make-up of NAPS.

Well my mole at Waterside tells me the vast majority of staff there don't really understand the implications of the proposals or of the strength of feeling amongst the pilot community. No change from the usual form there then.

I'm sure the company believe that some of the unions are on-side, the GMB being a prime example. Unfortunately for them you can have as many bean-counters, pen-pushers, latte-sippers and wildcat strikers as you like on-side, until they can fly a plane the company is going nowhere without the pilots.

I don't doubt it for a minute. The senior management are completely out of touch with the feelings of the pilot community. I recently flew with a buddy of Liquids,Creams and Gels who told me that we ought to go and talk to Liquid as he doesn't get any feedback from the community. Only he and his peers went to talk to Liquid as old pals, and he was quite ambivalent about the proposals with only a couple of years to go and a desire to work to 58. Thats the feedback Liquid is getting. Of course 90+% of the community aren't prepared to waste our time hanging around in Compass to talk to Liquid, especially as we know he doesn't listen anyway, so he has no idea than when I go to work the burning topic of conversation amongst almost everybody I fly with is the great pensions robbery. I don't even raise the topic, I just wait for the angry man in the seat next to me to mention it, and mention it they have done, without fail, every trip for the last 3 months. So lets let Liquids, Creams and Gels (and LonBA) continue with their heads in the sand. It just means they are oblivious to the long run-up we are taking to kick them up the ar se.

Cute, nevertheless your fight is not with me. Save the rhetoric for where/when it really counts.

No, our fight is with BA, who have just pressed the corporate self-destruct button. I hope those who enjoyed today's 20p a share rise have a decent dealing system and can get back out again quick, believe me, you are going to wish you had.

Forward bookings about to collapse, cash flow dry-up. BA have earned every penny of what's coming to them with their pensions lies, spin and deceit.

As to the poster who taunted me as a "comrade" - get a life. Re-read very one of the posts here and see why this has gone the way it has. I am no Socialist, Labour have stolen EVERY working persons dignity by destroying perhaps the most advanced and well-funded system of private pensions in the world.

No, I am fighting for the contract I signed and a shred of self-respect and decency at work. BA can demonstrably afford the compromise put to them by BALPA, but tie-less genius William W has other plans, mainly centered, it would seem, around his own enrichment at the expense of every employee of BA.

I swear that his attributed quote:

"Loyalty has no value"

will become the defining statement of how not to run a service business.

It will be quoted with glee by business schools for decades.

GS-AlphaThey wanted to get the easy agreement first and then be able to say, "But look - your trustees agreed to it, so it must be alright." Further, if you do strike, then they can tell the media that the Trustees agreed and repeat the above.

As to the Iberia deal ...
19,000,000 EUR
at 1 EUR = 0.678831 GBP (xe.com 01:28 16th Nov.)
12,897,788 GBP


Not much but it ain't going in your pension fund. What other deals have they done to reduce the pot?

And where did BA's gross indebtedness come from in the first place? Could it be that a previous "here today, gone tomorrow" Chief Exec wasted millions upon millions on a scheme to compete with National Airlines on their own turf by buying companies that bled cash from the start?

Could it possibly be that the millions thrown at Deutsche BA, TAT, etc etc were a series of staggering white elephants?

Could it possibly be that BA staff are now required to pay for this folly by surrendering their economic futures to enable BA to buy shiny new planes, something BA could easily have done had not hubris overtaken the previous-but-one incumbant of the head-honcho slot, and a culture of absolute power grown up around the "sun-king" so that not a soul dared challenge the ever-more preposterous schemes? (Tailfins being but one example).

Could it be that, when asked about this at the start of the Great Pension Theft Proposal, the then-finance director was alleged to have said:

'Oh well, BA was said then to be "undergeared" (borrowed) at the time, so of course we took on more debt'?

So it could be, then, that BA is employing classic mill-owner practises now by in effect saying:

"Run the machinery faster and blame the workers"? (900 hours a year the legal absolute maximum flightcrew flying hours limits, and BA's accepted rostering target for crews).

We all know where BA's problems arose. To be blamed for them now is more than cynical, and is about to bring the company to its knees. Less spin, more engagement and some honesty and humilty would be but a start in the process of re-building a once-great company. Is tie-less Willie going to embrace even a shred of this agenda?

Of course not. Good for you, WW:

'No Surrender'

as they say in your parts, I am told.

Don't give in to those Bolshevik Scum , your Staff. Ram it down their throats, to the whoops and cheers of the city boys, egging you on.

Good luck WW. You will need every ounce of it you can find. Your proposal is born in arrogance, laced with personal greed and doomed to fail.

BA, its employees, management and yes, pilots are getting EXACTLY what's coming to them.

You see, BA has to PAY for what they did to the likes of Virgin...and especially LAKER.

And, speaking of Laker, PanAmerican, TWA, McDonnal Douglas...all GONE.
Only BA survives, now its time for them to pay, pilots included.

Sir Freddie is laughing from his grave.
Sir Richard is doing the laughing from his club, as so he should.

.... and so speaks the bitter and twisted old duffer we all know and detest.