The presenters have been coached and come from an outside consultancy in some cases at about £1000 a day. Nice work if you can get it?

I know this is a Rumours network and we should never let the facts get in the way of a good story but I can assure you with some authority that their are no consultants doing the presenting (if there were, any worth their salt would get much more that £1000 a day by the way) and the proposal will still allow retirement at 55.

Porky
Are you a manager, because you seem unable to comprehend the significance of a change to the NRA.
Yes, you can still retire at 55 but your pension will be substantially reduced as you would then be retiring "early".
As an example: a 40 yr old who has already served 15 years can expect a 35%c reduction in pension if he retires at 55 instead of continuing to 65. This pension is then capped at 2.5% max per annum so will be worth very little after just a few years if there is any significant inflation!

Managers should be ashamed at the prospect of benefitting by massive bonuses just from robbing their staff. Or are you enjoying peddling these lies to your own people?

Do the crews really have any chance, though? I doubt it. Just another summer of discontent, but back to work as normal early Sept....

Guys,

You can retire whenever you want after 50, or 55 when the law changes.

Your pension to-date cannot be touched, this only counts for future pensions.

If you CHOOSE to work longer, you will not only earn the extra money (i.e. at least 40% more than you would receive if you retired and drew pension) , but, assuming you have paid into the pension for a few years already, within a year or two you'll be back at full pension, and if you CHOOSE (a choice you didn't have before) to work longer you'l earn even more from your pay and get an even bigger pension.

Come on guys the pensions world is changing, wishing it would stay the same isn't going to help you and if you force BA to pay the whole wad, then I doubt we'll be around long enough for you to draw a pension. One little crisis and we're up !!!!! creek.

I love the rumour about the 1000 pound coaching for presenters. Got any other gems? How about we start one... ummm I know, Willie is going to get 100% pension after 2 years. there you go, spread that one about a bit....

Also, what is the hang up about management bonuses? SMs and above have not incremental pay awards and they can can sacked and shown the door on the same day of the screw up. Thier job is to keep the company going despite all of the crap/oil prices/industrial unrest etc, your job is to fly the palnes. it's horses for courses. How would you like to be on Performance related pay and bonus dependant on how much money the company makes, rather than an increment, I bet you'd be less inclined to stike if it would hit you in the pay check???

Crash_and_Burn

A little disingenuous don't you think? I don't have a "choice" under the new proposals as leaving at 55 would cost money - the extra years working would only get you back to the position you thought you had before. Once past that point you would, I agree, begin to build up extra pension but at the cost of your life expectancy............

With respect Crash, you're missing the point.

I am happy with the principle that if I CHOOSE to work for longer I will earn more and get a bigger pension. What I object to is effectively being FORCED to work significantly longer for the pension I was expecting at 55. As I said earlier, my figures mean I break even at about the age of 63, which is eight years longer than the current situation. If I am in fact able to leave as planned at 55, I will get a 40% cut in my pension. That is neither practical nor fair.

If I leave at 63, before the proposed Normal Retirement Age, I will still take a cut in my pension compared to staying for the last two years....

and finally....

No. I won't be earning any more money. In fact, I will be working those last ten years for what amounts to a third of my pay. Why? Well, under the current system I will get two thirds of my salary at 55 for not working for BA (I consider it deferred pay - they could have paid me significantly more per month but with no pension but they chose to do it this way). If I now have to work those extra ten years, I will only be getting a third more than I would have done had I been retired.

Consider the people who are actually going to have to live with this before you start spouting the management lies. :hmm:

I am speaking as one of the lucky ones that retired from flying, still in part 6 (APS) and able to commute a tax free sum. I also had a crystallised pension as my NRA was 50 and CRA 55. Will the NRA=CRA or will there still be CRA>NRA and the facility to crystallise in the proposals?

Back to the quoted post...

Before looking at this presentation be aware that my wife's pension (if she survives me) is 50% of my pension BEFORE commutation. The break even point where the loss in pension on a monthly basis is greater than the tax free sum is when (if) I reach about 78 years old. With my wife it doesn't apply as her pension (assuming she survives me) will not have changed by taking the lump sum.

Perhaps if the presenter were in receipt of the present BA pension rules he might just come to a different conclusion.

Nobody want to compare figures with those in the rest of aviation.No?, I didn't think so, not out loud anyway. Oh well, gave you all a laugh!
Just trying to interject a little perspective.:cool:

Ok, I'll bite.:rolleyes:

I don't work in the rest of aviation. I work in my own bit of it and that bit promised me a decent pension at 55, which they're now trying to take away. How would you feel?

With reference to the capping of the pension at 2.5% instead of 5% I was able to cull the following information using the RPI figures from the Office of National statistics.

Over the last 57 years,

Yearly inflation remained at or below 5% for 64.5% of the time.

Yearly inflation remained at or below 2.5% for 19.3% of the time.

I'd feel screwed.....looks like your "bit" of aviation just jumped into the sewer that is the rest of aviation:\

Hi All!
BA are flying one enormous great kite but I'll leave you guys to decide that for yourselves.
What interests me is Balpa's position with regards collective bargaining.I'm not sure that Balpa legally can reach an agreement with BA on this matter and either party have any right to expect the pilot(s) to accept it.What about those who are not Balpa members?(This is a relatively minor point but think about it).Industrial law may have changed and I'm no expert but I believe any pilot if he or she so wished could say "No,I'd like to stick with my present pension arrangement".There are some close to retirement or elsewhere who might be inclined to test this in a court of law.This present "Con" compares slightly to the case of the APS/NAPS merger.Just because BA are suggesting something doesn't mean it'll stand up to legal/professional scrutiny.
On the other hand someone should ask Balpa where they stand if they don't like the final settlement.
Bob Ayling saw a window of opportunity with the pensions merger and likewise WW with this debacle.I wish all you guys all the best for the future.HTH.
As an american once said "How do you get to be the world's most profitable airline?Get the staff to subsidise it."

If you had cause to strike it should be against the amount of tax you pay. Scotch Gordon has robbed your and everyone elses' pension fund to the tune of GBP5 billion per year for the last 9 years and you want to blame the company. Gordon must be having a good chuckle. To add insult to injury, he is giving your money to his client electorate in the civil service and local government so that they can retire at 60. Wake up boys!!

Human factor,

Yes I too would be P*****s'd! Again it all depends on which side you sit. A, B or C pay scale. Should one group of workers within the same company effectively get a rise in pay at the expense of the the others, as happens when companies allow two types of funding schemes.

Let me see if I've got this right.

Everybody else in the World is losing their pension and being stuffed by meglomaniac bosses, so I'm afraid you airline pilots are going to have this crap visited on you.

It has no postive impact on safety. It cannot enhance customer service. It greatly increases the chances of an accident. But we have to put up with it, so bend over and smile sweetly at the boss.

Give me a break:*

I think the cost of the Chancellors Pension Raid on APS and NAPS combined was just over £822 M to date.:mad:

Oops
 

Interesting snippets in today's press :

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1745465,00.html

and last paragraph here :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...03/ixcity.html

So, with NAPS's world beating investment advisers we should all be well ahead.

This letter to the UK newspaper The Independent in early April, is the kind of small straw that the pilots should be keeping a record of. It beautifully states the problem that they have and shows the destruction of pensions across industry lines and governments. The more of these small items that they can collect - and generate - then they will raise the profile to the British public and perhaps, just perhaps, start to humiliate the Board and shareholders. If they can prove how the previous Board got away with the robbery, then it may be possible to convince this lot to put it back. Gordon Brown's dirty hands not withstanding. It says it all in 220 words.

Sir: May I add to the letters responding to your leading article (29 March) on public-sector pensions. When I joined local government in 1971, all staff over 18 were required to join the Local Government Pension Scheme. It was a non-negotiable condition of service that we do so, as was the condition that we pay 6 per cent of our salary into it. There was no choice about joining the scheme, nor about the contributions. Nor were we allowed to join any other scheme instead. If I had refused to join the scheme, my contract of employment would have ended.

In exchange, I was promised the pension deal outlined by Unison. By the 1980s the Thatcher government decided that this was restrictive and all employees should have the choice of joining a private scheme, even to transfer their previous contributions to it. In common with most employees, I stayed where I was.

This meant I was still entitled to the pension deal outlined by Unison. I have kept my part of the deal, the deal which I had no choice but to accept, for over 30 years. It is insulting enough that the pension promise is being broken; that local government staff have been singled out in this way, when teachers and civil servants have not, makes it more so.
JOANNE ASTON

Would anyone like to illuminate us to the pension deal that the directors enjoy and whether their bonus whould be affected by getting this through.

As an outsider (on a pension) I would suggest that any trade off agreed should be balanced by an equivalent share of the equity in the airline.

I believe Eddington's & Rishton's (CFO) pensions accrued at twice the rate of other employees. Both are now gone. Fair enough, Eddington's departure was known about in advance because he did say five years and no more. Rishton recently jumped ship for a better job elsewhere, so that was money well spent on "keeping talent in the company".:hmm:
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the BA board have better pensions than staff. This type of thing has been a bone of contention for some time. The "poor bloody infantry" take all the pensions risk while company bosses are shielded from the effects of shortfalls. Same with MP's, Uk taxpayers are funding the MP's scheme deficit. One law for them, one for the rest of us.:*

BA CAN AFFORD TO PAY
It's accepted that they have assets of 2.4 Billion that are not used for operational reasons.
Profits , already £450Million (before tax ) are within 4 years likely to approach £1 Billion as the company hits a 10% margin.
The facts are that LHR is a goldmine. BA is an inefficient, clumsy, poorly run company and has the potential to make even more money.

It has been paying down debt at a rate of over £1 billion per year since 2001.

Recent share movements show the sentiment ;
http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=stati...&cb=1144448422

I read the company newspaper and this appears to show many staff are very happy with the changes BA want, even a feeling of this is a great result.
On the company intranet site, they have a discussion thread about the pensions, staff have put comments on said, but it appears BA is very very selective on comments that get posted.
BA are working this very well.
If any of these changes get accepted, good luck to the staff in old age, you will need it I'm sure.
If any of these changes get accepted, good luck to the managers and enjoy all that extra cash and shares you will be getting.
Time To Wake Up And Smell The Roses.???

and now on internal messages, pilots are being told to stop going along to pension briefing of cabin crew 'cos we've been asking awkward questions and exposing the real proposals and their drawbacks.

Oh, and by the way, the person telling us to butt out is GMFO Capt Paul Douglas, the Prince of Darkness. Just a minute though, that's right, he's a NAPS Pension Trustee appointed by the company.

£2.4 BILLION?
 

Shuttleworth, Where have you got that figure from?

As far as I'm aware, pretty much every fixed asset that isn't in use has been flogged off since 9/11.


Most current assets have large liabilities offsetting them e.g around £1bn of cash is held for tickets sold but not yet flown. BA has a liability to those passengers.

I want my pension as much as everyone, and I'm not happy with the offer, but claims that can't be supported don't help the arguement

All the figures BALPA have come from BA and are in the public domain (if one looks hard enough).;)

My issue is the statement that these are not in operational use.
At Q3 BA had £11.9bn of assets on the Balance sheet (Interim statement on BAshares.com)
£8.0bn consisted of Aircraft, Property and other Equipment. These are all in use.
£0.2 bn of slots There are in use
£0.4bn of other long term asset. To be honest, I'm not sure about these
£1.1bn of stock, and debtors. These are an essential part of running the operation. Maybe BA could run with lower balances, but you risk sales and operational shortages
£2.1bn of Cash & equivalent. Around a billion of this is owed back to passengers who have yet to fly, and about 0.5bn is needed to repay loans within 12 months.
Using numbers from the accounts without thinking what they really represent is going to weaken the case.
I really believe that its better to stick to the basic points of principle
The offer is not a final salary scheme
Capping the index linking to 2.5% will risk our finances

Top Bunk,

A shocking conflict of interests I think!!!

Pension Trustee tells pilots not to ask difficult questions during the cabin crew pension briefings. BA's management is rotten to the core.

Further to this point, I still wonder why the papers didn't hang LCG and MS for selling 1,000s of shares on the morning of the Gate Gourmet walkout.

Hi BA Beancounter .
I haven't got time now to sort through the accounts ( though I will post the evidence in the next few dates) .
There is no need for doubt though.
The figures I do recall are ;
BA has £11 and a half billion of fixed assets on the balance sheet.
Return on investment is currently 10.25%

Basically; my quote of "2.4billion of assets not used for operational purposes" is taken from a presentation by a very respected accountant at the BALPA pension meeting. Others may be able to offer you a better description.

As I said BA can afford to pay.

These aren't my words, but I think they are appropriate "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."

These figures are all very well but once again our masters 'the shareholders' have been forgotten. There is no way that they will sanction any large injection of cash without staff penalties.

Another company has taken a bold step to repair it's pension plan.

BBC Compass sells its retail business
Catering giant Compass has agreed to sell its Upper Crust to Moto retail business for £1.82bn ($3.2bn).

The unit, which operates outlets across railway stations and airports, and runs motorway service stations, is being split and sold to two separate firms.

Private equity group EQT Partners is to buy the airports and railway business, while Macquarie Bank is taking over the Moto motorway service station arm.

Compass first unveiled plans to sell the units last autumn.

It said it planned to return £500m from the sale proceeds to shareholders, and make an additional £275m contribution to its pension plan.


Here is a company that has sold off assests to both return cash to shareholders and to pay into it's pension fund. These examples of companies that are 'doing the decent thing' should be noted. It's clear from the article that the pension fund is not the sole reason for the action but an important one.

I am a little suprised that no-one has made any comments with regard to weekend observations in 'the Business and the Observer'. Once again it was alligned with an interview with WW, it quoted BA as no 1 in the FTSE pension debt league and not for the first time have I seen the city advise BA to go into administration effectively ending the pension problem once and for all with no recourse by us potential pensioners other than the courts. The other point was that it stated that the Wheel had an outstanding loan debt of 90 millions, yet we are told it sold for 60 millions, thus a lose of 30 millioms. As many of you state how many sets of books do BA run?

WW has noted among other things the success of Ryanair's use of contractor-pilots. Rumour has it that BA are in discussion with several of the pilot crewing agencies of the type such as Parc about replacing ALL BA pilot contracts with contract pilots on relatively short term assignments that are renewed at BA's whim.

To get to this desired end state BA are looking at the meltdown option of closing "existing BA" and starting again with a clean sheet. Existing pension obligations would be met by some kind of rights issue that then morphed into shares in the "new", un-pension-encumbered BA. This route would appeal to the city as it "solves" the pension issue once and for all and "liberates the value" in BA by stealing the pilots' pension rights.

WW believes this would trigger a rise in contractor-style employment across the UK industry, to the great benefit of employers and disbenefit of pilots, long an ambition of a man who has become a turncoat to his own profession and who routinely describes professional aviation as "tedium with a view".

Yes, as I've said before on this thread there are plenty of us waiting in the wings for BA2.com.
It would also sort out the SH competition as contract for BA2 would likely be more popular than Ryanair etc. Take the offer and get on with your lives!

Lookout, tide of reality coming.

1) "WW has noted...". Where? To you? Link please.

2) "Close existing BA....". Just a shame that would put them all in jail.

3) "Replace all BA pilot contracts...". Yup, easy to replace 3100 pilots.Who would train them? Who would insure them? Do you really think Easy/RYR would just let their pilots wander off? Do you think the BAA will let those slots sit unused for 12 months whilst BA2 gets going?

All for a good discussion about this but lets keep it real (ie BA can pay, don't want to and where do we go from here?)

52049er - I think the BA pilot contract issue relates to if BA2.com ever happened - and I don't think it will (IMHO) - is that Crews will be left with very few, if anywhere else to go and there you have it, most will gnash their teeth and have little option. But as I say, this will not happen so relax.

HZ123 - seems like you've picked up on several good points. I was discussinmg that BA Eye only last week whilst in YYZ, I heard the same rumours from a London Tourist Board official!!! :}

Unfortunately all this talk of the london eye is rubbish too.

Tussauds paid BA £95m and in return BA wrote off the £175m debt it was owed from the Eye.
This debt was built from £48m that BA loaned the Eye to get up and running and interest on the loan at 25%. Seeing as this interest was eating up all the profits it was a smart move to take the £95m and run.

As for BA closing and restarting - dream on :rolleyes:

Fly747 - how many years are you going to sit waiting for BA2.com to start? How about getting off your backside and applying for a job if you want to join BA? Lack of drive holding you back?

Rant over!

Who's flying the plane? Well Mr US Government employee, we don't know. We think it's a couple of contract workers who were engaged for this flight to New York on a one off call out just for today. Captain Al and First Officer Kyder.

Yeah, right.

Get real folks.. You cannot shut down an airline and restart it on a whim. You have to go bust first. BA is one of the most profitable legacy carriers in the world. :p

You cannot fire anyone and rehire another to do the same job.:p

Remember, like it or not, BA T&C's go, others will suffer.:{

If you want to work for BA in any incarnation get real and apply at www.BA.com :ok: