Gardener?
 

Manure. All good gardeners wade knee deep in manure and spread it freely about. So, let's get this straight. You're suggesting that an airline CEO/MD is really a gardener because both scatter manure as a daily practice? Some very powerful symbolism there Hansof. I wonder if there are any mushrooms in this garden of yours. Kept in the dark, fed on manure, waiting for another bucketful from the knowledgeable gardener.

As for the shareholders and public opinion: Both irrelevant. Shareholders are gamblers; gamblers who have purchased a small piece of a pie theoretically allowing a measure of commensurate control which in practice only serves to hold them hostage to whatever gain or loss the market deems fit to dish out. Public opinion is equally irrelevant.

Unfortunately, XL5, the first duty of a board of directors is to the owners of the company, ie the shareholders. Employees and customers come lower down the list, although clearly there is some linkage. Therefore shareholders are not irrelevant - far from it. Also your disdain for public opinion will hurt you some day.

Exactly Turin, BA has the cash in the bank to pay the deficit , but it chooses not to...

BA is doing very well, no doubt they'll announce they've bought a load of triples so they don't have the fnds available anymore.

The bottom line is that BA are going back on a promise here, an agreement to pay X upon retirement at 55, which was the reason many signed in the first place, if the terms that made you sign a contract to buy a car or whatever were liable to such changes and were able to be changed so readily then you'd never sign, so why should this be any different?

BA also have a finite time to sort this out, they want the staff to agree to these new lesser terms, otherwise the Pension Ombudsman gets involved and BA could be forced to pay back the pension deficit.

You guys stick to your guns and make them pay you what they originally promised!

In which case Roman, it's time for the ubiquitous mediocre suits to pay what they owe and spare the poor shareholders (such as your good self) from much potential pain, grief and suffering. After all, it's only fair, as it would appear to be your money that the suits are performing their juggling act with. Naughty suits, who would ever have thought it?

Support BA!!!!!
 

I used to be with BRAL, I'm now paid a bit less but with a much bettr run Regional airline. I left because of the b0llocks BA made of my previous Company. I've had many an argument with BA pilots about the way the whole BA structure works, and particularly how insular,arrogant, and often plain stupid both the BA pilot community and their management are - particularly in the way they treated BRAL/Manx after buying us to access our LHR slots.

HOWEVER, and it's a whopping however -

BA are unfairly disliked and envied by many purely because their Ts and Cs are seen to be better than others, jealousy and division rules. Actually, they have set the UK benchmark since they were formed, and it has been that benchmark, like it or not, which has been responsible for most other Industry pay-rises and improvements. It has always been in Industry's interest to get BA as high a pay rise as possible, and as good Ts and Cs as possible:
1. Because if you wanted to join them you obviously benefited.
2. Because even if you didn't, your airline was more or less forced to keep up somewhat or face a constant pilot and general workforce drain.

Now, my pension is still with BAConnect - it's deferred. I have lobbied hard for mainline support over the years, none has ever been forthcoming, and this was very frustrating - see para #1! HOWEVER, they have all my support, for what that is worth, because, selfishly, I am in no doubt that if Willie Wonka wins this one, then my own pension pot is doomed. It may well be damaged as things are, but you do not need to be a rocket scientist to see that if the BA NAPS is scuppered, then all the other firts and second level airlines will follow suit. They'll have to, just to keep an equivalent control on their own overheads proportionately. People on here are right, the world is changing, that Scottish b#astard in no 11 should be sacked and sent home to Scotland to enjoy his sparkling wine from the co-op, HOWEVER - BA are cobntractually obligated to meet this pension - there is ZERO possibility that WW will win a determined strike by BA aircrew, or even, if you stop to think about it, by the check-in staff, by the engineers etc etc. As pilots, as Airline employees, as humans who agreed to accept terms of employment, we owe it not just to BA but to OURSELVES to support them with every single iota of effort we can dredge up. The pax support? Who the hell cares - they won't be supporting us our dotage - will they??
Summary - if BA employees lose this one, we're all (to a greater or lesser degree) fooked good and proper, ceaseless erosion of salary and Ts and Cs will get even worse. For Christ's sake, wake up and smell the coffee!!!!

TLP,

A great post. You and I have had our differences in the past about the regional operation but it's good to have your support. Thanks.

You are right but tell us something we don't know.....we are trying to avoid being railroaded into some "get rich quick" pensions solution - and the guys who are trying to "get rich quick" are the CEO, his fellow board members and some other well incentivised members of Senior Management. I do care about inconveniencing the public, but I care more about the financial security of my family. BA ain't going broke, and it can certainly afford to dig deeper into it's pockets to help resolve this problem.

As for the "other departments" not being on "our" side, I wouldn't be so sure. Due to some fairly inept man management ( or lack of it ) over recent years there are employee groups lining up to give the Company a kick, and they seem to see this issue as an opportunity to have a go. It's been a revelation - normally on arrival at "Hellsrow" the dispatchers and greeting ground staff don't have time or inclination to talk to the incoming flight crew, this morning I was approached and asked for my views on the Pensions offer by both a dispatcher and a member of Terminal ground staff. Due to the lack of info at the moment from the Cabin Crew Unions the Cabin Crew are asking us for information, asking us what BALPA is saying. Wille should be very afraid, at the moment BALPA is winning the PR battle and there is remarkable degree of unity.... at the moment. We know in the forthcoming months the Company will modify it's offer in attempt to buy off other employee groups but the employees are not stupid. It will take a lot more from Willie than this offer to split the workforce.

"The pax support? Who the hell cares - they won't be supporting us our dotage - will they??" to quote TLP. Hmm, well after my last passenger experience with BA I'd rather walk. And this confirms that view. You do actually need some passengers, don't forget.

Roman

Our LH flights are absolutely chock-a-bloc. I can't remember operating a 'quiet' flight recently. We're about to post record figures. I'm sorry you had a bad experience but people still keep flying with us.

Hansof, thanks for your reply, I take back the comment about vitriol. However, I can't understand your points, you're being far too cryptic!

Well, it was a short haul flight (tho' that's not relevant) and I have nothing to say against the flight crew; it was a ground agent who really chapped my hide. My point is that the disdain for passengers which he showed and which is evident in some of the posts here will not be healthy for the company in the long run. I'm not anti-BA at all - it's just that reading this thread has some of the fascination of watching a film of a car crash in slow motion.

Willie Walsh is in the driving seat, it's up to him if there is a car crash or not.

Chrisbl .... No problem with you last paragraph at all, and it's nice to see a well thought out erudite response in such an emotive subject matter.

I see from your profile thet you are getting toowards the age when the Meni in Black will intercept you on your walk to YOUR office and hand you the envelope telling you what the Pensions Gods have for you. Just think of that moment. Think of your pension plans. Think of your family. Throw away the property abroad magazines and then sit down and let despair take over. 10 more years for you Buddy. Just when the Grandchild was tugging at your knee to take her to the seaside. Think on it and weep.
After you have done all that, let me know, and I will ask you again, if a strike is justifiable. You are hearing it from a lifelong non striker, and , in fact, have stepped over the line at BA's behest many a time to help keep the operation running, so..... Pilot, Dispatcher, Engineer, Ops Staff, it matters not. Ba have spent the last years in confrontation with all manner of staff.
Gategourmet....are they supplying Short Haul Catering again.?? I admit it has been a month, since I flew BA Short Haul, but not since it stopped....good saving for Big Airways. Long haul last week and it seems normal.
What about the efforts by BA to get some modicum of control over out share of Part VI. I think it was absolutely correct to be suspicious of the company intention and vote with a resounding "NO"
I hope against hope that the company is not embroiled in a strike, but if it comes, the finger should not be pointed at the Pilots, Cabin Crew and Ground Staff. :{ :{

Taildragger,

I am on my own as far as pensions are concerned, and as fast as I run, the little impact it makes. where I work there is no final salary scheme and not many employers take new people into final salary schemes anyway these days.

There will be no retirement for me and whilst I might joke about it, the only reason why I will have a bed in the care home when I am 75 will be because I will be working there.

I already have a view on whats ahead for me and I am happy to swap it with any BA crew.

Problem No 1 for NAPS:
The main damage has already been done - not by Slick but by Skippy. In allowing him to start a new (inferior) defined contribution scheme for new joiners the divide and rule process was allowed to commence. At the time, several of my BA friends took the view 'why should I threaten industrial action for people who are not even in the Company yet?' It wouldn't have taken much thought to realise what was going on. As it is, these new staff will vote against industrial action and, together with the inevitable number who are simply against any form of action, there is a significant split. This will not have gone unnoticed by Slick.

Problem No 2 for NAPS:
BA pilots, fine individuals that they undoubtedly are, will collectively receive little sympathy from the rest of the profession if they decide to embark upon industrial action. The BA pilot force has ruthlessly and without the slightest remorse, shafted too many other groups in the past to expect support from other pilots. I won't bore readers with a list but it continues to this day with BA Connect and the 747 freight Airline whos name escapes me as I write. Why have they done it? Collective greed and... Because they can.

Having said the above, I totally agree with the majority of contributions an this thread. Fiddling with employees contracted pensions in absolutely outrageous and something has to be done. I fear though, that you chaps are on a damage limitation exercise.

I totally, 100% agree bullshot. The list of people the BA 'old' guard (pre 2002) have shafted over the years is getting long, and so is the list of people revelling in schadenfreude at the way they are now being brought into the world the rest of the population inhabit. So their moral rule book is being offended - Well; just like the Dan Air, BAregional and GSS rules of honourable engagement were tossed out of the window then!

On your first point, I recall that recently British Gas engineers threatened strike when DC pensions were proposed for new recruits - They had the foresight to see what was coming next, where the BA pilots didn't.

This debate could go on in a complicated manner for a very long time.
It can, however, be very much simplified and summarised in a very few stark facts. The only thing to wait for is the confirmation from BALPAs professionals that BA CAN afford to meet their obligations.
Once this confirmation is forthcoming (and should it prove to be the case that BA can not afford to pay everything changes) there will be a very simple choice open to BAs management:
Pay up and meet your obligations
OR
Stop operating due pilots on strike, so forget all potential profits and your huge bonuses.
www.befairba.com
:( :( :(

It seems to me that your view on this subject is going to depend solely on which side of the fence you sit.

The working population today is made up of those with and those without defined final salary pension. The have's and have not's. Those with....... nice retirement. Those without.......contribute about 30% salary or you'll be using meals on wheels.
Those that have, for obvious reasons, will fight to keep what that they have, even if it means getting the have not's to help pay for it. Take for example Government and MP's. Who pays for their pension? Why are council rates going through the roof? Got to pay for those final salary pensions somehow! Money taken out of a company is subsidised by shareholders, employee pay rise's etc.
Not all the blame falls at the door of the stock market of course. Both thieving from, and badly run pension funds by both insurance companies, employers and the government all contribute to the situation.

Pension contributions, are for all intents and purposes salary. When proposal's were put forward by the companies to generate a two tier salary system there were of course no shout's of derision from the have's. Most people just wish to protect what they have and don't care whether the guy next to them get's the same.
What you have done however though, is generate division between workers within the same company.

So.. "don't expect any support from those who have not". It's just the way the country has gone. People are by nature, greedy, and self interest will always come before concern for others. We don't like to see the same guy same job, next to us, getting a better deal. It's human nature.

The more people who have not, the less sympathy for your cause. But then again.......do you care? No I'm sure not!

Just think yourself lucky that you can aim your pension frustrations at a tangible object BA. We, as have not's, see the pension disappear without recourse to anyone. :bored:

Amidst all the talk of retirement ages, don't miss the real devil in this deal: the linking of pensionable pay rises to RPI while normal pay continues to rise with wage inflation. After 25 years of this your pensionable pay rate might be only half of your full pay. So after 35 years, say, with the company, you'd be retiring at 65 on about 1/4 pay. That is why I am prepared to strike; this is no better than the career-average deal that BALPA shot down while it was still taxiing.

Rant on

To follow up on theDude, there is intergenerational conflict starting up.

FSA reports today that 18-40 year olds are in financial crisis

http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/st...741079,00.html

The boomers don't know how easy they got it. Final salary pensions, free university education, massive house price inflation. Too selfish to have enough children to support/ replace themselves, but hey, that is what immigration is for isn't it? God forbid the NHS may be short of low paid staff, just import them, and leave the next generation to deal with the societal changes. FSP too expensive? Shut it to new joiners. Worried about pension? Buy up lots of houses and rent them out, pricing them out of reach of first time buyers. Govt pensions under stress? Raise retirement age for the young, raise council taxes.

I support your right to fight for what you were promised in BA/ fire service/ police force/ whatever 25 years ago. But, yes, it is coming at the expense of others following you, and we are seeing an odd redistribution of wealth from the young to the middle aged.

Not sure how long it can go on for. Already 1/3 new mortgagees are using interest only to be able to afford to buy, and are relying on their inheritance to pay off the mortgage. Well, that is if their parents don't spend it all on residential homes!

Rant over

Entrenched older unionised workers attempting to maintain above-market rate compensation at the expense of the younger workers.

I refer to the RMT and London Underground of course, but then it is not that much different from your situation - is it...?

I do of course agree that a promise is a promise, however I don't think many of you realise (a) how good you have it, even in NAPS and, (b) how much you are screwing over everyone of my generation.

Oh well, at least my portable DC plan has (a) no link to years of service in any one company, and (b) will rocket with the stock market AND be able to pay out...


Remember, regarding today's local public sector strike, that it is your council tax that will rise to pay for them if they win. Your taxes will rise to pay for the national workers settlement last year, in the future.

You have no choice over paying taxes, but passengers and cargo can and do move to other operators, so once BA's protected position at Heathrow is finally eroded, with whom do you think they will fly when your overfunded pensions still have to be met by the company?

Do you want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg...

Yes your right Freehills.

The "I'm alright Jacks" have even sprung up in France now. The "I'm all right Jaques" are happy to work their 35hrs, job for life..... but if you're under 26 you've got a nerve to expect the same. Instant dismissal is all you deserve. I only hope the French youth burn the house down and deal with their greedy sanctimonius boomer generation.

There must come a time when the younger generation turn around and refuse to carry society's debt any more. Free education, mortgage relief, state health, state dentistry, company car, final salary pension, repayment mortgage, free type rating, sponsored training, time served not hoops jumped yada yada ya. You have got to admire the youth of today for their tollerance!

Sue the Bas***ds
 

A question?:confused:

If the pension as it stands today is part of your contract, as a number of people here have said it is, and then the company changes that contract against your wishes, why don't you sue?:eek:

Reading my own contract, the company agrees to provide the option of joining a pension scheme but it dosen't agree to any specific level of pension etc. I'm sure yours dosen't either.

The build up rates dropping back to 1/56th from 1/52 are just returning to what they were when Naps was opened. they changed to 1/52 in 1989 I think. Did anyone call for a strike when the build up rate was reduced, becasue the fund was in surplus? no didn't think so.

As for the other figures. BA has 2 billion in cash. about a billion of that is cash we get paid in advance. If we go on strike, that money, or some of it needs to be paid back for flights that don't operate. of the other billion, 500mill has been promised to the pension scheme. All of the big brains on here are suggesting that BA should stump up the other 500 mill as well. great idea, so when Osama get's down to business again, or bird flu stikes which pot of money shall we relay on to get us through the crisis? oh yeah, none of it casue it's all in the pension scheme. BA needs about 15million a day on hand to operate, any sensible person would keep at least 60 days worth of cash in reserve just in case it all hits the fan, don't you agree?

As for the increased retirment age, as the majority of BA pilots wanted to stay beyond 55 anyway, I don't see the problem. Also if you have done even a moderate amount of service and choose to work until your new retirment age, you will actually be better off in retirment, plus you'll have the opportunity to earn another 5 or 10 years wages.

I just hate it when people want to give me more money

The only bit I'm not keen on is the 2.5% cap increase in your pension in the future. if Inflation is below 2.5% then fine, if inflation is at 10% then interest rates will be at 10% so I don't see the problem with the pension cap being at 10% as well.

Let the vilification begin, but remeber, that, although you might not be able to see it from your ivory tower/flight deck, the world of pensions is changing, and even with the changes we still have a F**king good pension scheme that will keep you in wine and cheese for many years to come.:)

Our contract says we are part of the NAPS pension. It doesn't mention specifics such as accrual rates, etc. Those are set by the trustees, not BA.

The company have to honour agreements given to the tax office by way of deed up to the time that they can renegotiate a new agreement. They can dispose of the current liability by going bust and letting the PPF pick up the pieces or by buying everyone a deferred annuity to cover current liabilities. A mere £4Billion.

To ammend the deed they need to now negotiate with the trustees and provide an extensive information program to scheme members.

So it is perfectly legal to garuntee present benefits and ammend future benefits. They cannot make changes to already earned benefits, for that you could sue.

Most anti BA people are missing the point I think. It's not a case of us being upset at the possibility of having to work to 60 (although I would rather not). It's that BA are taking the pension that would be due to me at 55. It's just the same as me writing a cheque to them for a couple of hundred grand or effectively taking a 40% pay cut for my last 5 years. How many of you think it's ok to work hard for a company for 25 years, taking a 40% salary cut in the last part and then have less of a pension than you were promised.

Flps62,

if you've done 25 years, you'll be back to your full pension if you work about 1 1/2 years longer. You'll also earn your full salary for that 1 1/2 years as well. you'll also have the opportunity to fly for a further 3 1/2 years, earn extra pensions and salary, at your current seinority level. if you leave and fly for emirates or Virgin, you'll be at the bottom of the pile and in Lagos every other trip.

so by my reconning, if you are willing to put in 18 months more then you'll earn and extra 110k (your pay) but will have lost out on about 75k in pension, so you'll still be 35k better off and then you can retire on your full pension (above is calcualted using the assumption you earn the average BA pilots salary of £75k)

I know it's a bind to work 18 months longer, but the world has changed and will keep on changing. the defict is not BAs fault, but it is it's responsisbility to fix. it could in thoery throw a billion at it but that would not solve the problem as we would all still be on the same terms and conditions, so the deficit would just start growing again.

If you choose to leave at 55 then it's your choice, but you pension will be slightly lower (5%?).

welcome to 2006!:ok:

Ah but Crash and Burn, when not if the NRA raises to 65 you may not be able to retire at 56 half because you will have to wait another 8 half years to collect your pension. Remember the letter only said you could retire early for a smaller pension, it did'nt go on to expand when you were going to get it. The devil is in the detail.

Crash,

As you point out, by working for an extra 18 months I might be 35k better off. So do you know anybody else who thinks that after 40 years of aviation and 25 years with BA, retiring as a skipper on an effective salary of less than £24k per year is reasonable?

Hi Flaps,

I'd love to know how you get to the figure of 24k? I earn a whole lot less than 75k (I keep using this as an average, so no personal remark is intended) but my pension, if I'd done 25 years, would be nearly 20k, plus the state pension. giving me about 24k.

If you are going to end up on 24k then that will be the same as any one else with a command who's done 25 years service. so you'll be average.

24k is still a lot more than most people earn while they are working....

I got £24k using the figures you gave:

If BA had kept their word I would have retired at 55 and started receiving a pension. Over the next 18 months this would be worth £75k (it will be much less than this but let's run with it!). If they force me to keep working, I will not receive this pension, but will earn £110k. Therefore, for working for 18 months I have received only £35 k.

Crash,

Not sure where you get your figures from? If BA have their way, the pension won't pay out until 65, irrespective of when you leave. In addition, it won't have any effective inflation protection so it'll be worth less and less, year on year.

From my point of view, if I were able to claim at 55 based upon the new proposals, I would lose approximately 40% of my current planned pension. My break even point with the existing scheme would be at about the age of 63 and even then I wouldn't be able to actually claim it for another two years. I would therefore be claiming the same pension for ten years less, despite having planned for and paid for that pension to begin at 55. Equally, my life expectancy is likely to be a couple of years less based upon the fact that I'd have to work an extra ten years. It's lose-lose as far as I'm concerned.

Thieving b:mad:ds!

HF how right you are, I am meeting an awfull lot of people who think its not to bad, scratch under the surface and it is. A Captain was telling me how he did'nt care since he was going in a few years and had 28 years service so at 55 it would'nt make a large amount of difference, his face turned sour when I told him he would need to wait until 60 possibly 65 to collect said pension.

Pensions can still be claimed at 50 until 2010 when the earliest age becomes 55.

That's the minimum age at which the law allows you to collect your pension. Whether or not you are able to depends on the scheme you are in. The BA proposal would not permit this.

All getting quite interesting!

In my non-BA pension world..15% salary contribution + company contribution after 25 years service will pay about 50 % final salary. Could be a little more could be less depending on the markets or the chancellors mood:)
Also based on hitting max. salary (barring inflation) at 10 years.

How does that compare?? just interested.

If anybody is thinking about taking a tax free lump sum, I can heartily recomend watching this webcast.
http://brighttalk.com/comm/sl/1d8dd48994-754-173-675

The company's pension proposal is the final straw for me. Not only is it a poor offer, but it has been deviously designed to CON the majority into thinking it is not too bad. I find this so immoral, and if they are happy to do this to their employees, they are presumably happy to shaft their customers too.

I will be leaving just as soon as I can, and I hope a lot of other people follow suit. The company deserves to fall to pieces.

I'm not sure you are right in claiming that - having read BALPAs info, the Company spin and been a fly on the wall at a Cabin Crew pensions session I understand the proposed changes mean he will still be able to draw his NAPS 1 pension at 55. Having said that I am shouting "no" as loud as the next guy but sadly won't be able to make Thursday's GMM.

I have to agree with GS-Alpha, the presentation of this is shocking
It is NOT a final salary scheme as it wil bear little relation to final salary
One of the "selling" points is that your previous service wn't be touched.
Well thank you for not doing something that would be illegal anyway!
A couple of questions I couldn't get answered
What do they mean when they say that longevity cost will be "shared"
If the NRA is increased what happens to one of my staff who is near retirement and want to go at 58, Does she get 2 years abatement(*) or 7?
Has anyone heard an answer to these?
* I think abatement is the right term for reducing your pension if you draw early

You are not the only one. It was interesting to sit in on one of the sessions being given to the Cabin Crew. The presenters (I know not who they were ) were very good at keeping to the script and the associated powerpoint presentation....however they were no use at all at answering any questions that did not fit into any of their neatly scripted answers (a bit like politicians taking on Jeremy Paxman I guess)....Sadly I got the impression the B S worked on some of the younger one's present....I think many of the "youngsters" are either quite fatalistic or completely unable to comprehend what the Company intends to do.

BTW I thought "abatement" was the reduction in your pension payment due to the questionable fact that you also receive the state pension, but I'm probably wrong.

Regards.