Viewing the Sunday papers & items relating to BA and aviation there was also another item in the pink 'Business' paper. It stated that several sources confirm that the 'open sky' freedom will be signed at the end of the month by the USA and EU committee. It added that BA has already made plans to exercise 5th freedom rights when the 06 October winter schedules kicks off. BMI will look to ceasing a number of their LHR-EU routes and code share / lease to permit switching to longhaul (which has always been their stated intention). Should this come to pass then clearly this will place much greater emphasis on pensions and BA costs at LHR. Whether there is any credance in the article it must follow that eventually it will be signed and there is much to be resolved within BA prior to that and for WW a greater urgency to settle the pensions issue?

WW's "leadership team", (and I put that term in quotes advisedly), talk to people in the airline every day. One of them has let slip that WW is particularly keen to enable access for contract pilots to the flying that the BA brand sells. He does not want the current situation of being tied to a sole source, the pilot employees on a BA contract, to continue unchanged. He HAS, seen how Ry@nair use contractors to scr@ew the employees of Ry@nair and he is said to thoroughly approve of the technique.

Can he close "exisiting" BA? Theoretically no because the size of the pension deficit, which he would have to make good on closure, dwarfs BA's reserves of cash to pay it.

Could he close "existing" BA after a rights issue had left him with enough cash to pay off the existing scheme liabilities? Lets say if a strike was called that shut BA down for a prolonged period? Yes, he could. It would not be a case of "re-employing sacked workers", it would be a case of a wholly new legal entity coming to the market place for employees in the aftermath of such an event. The rights issue money would be used to recapitalise the new operation and most probably be issued to the investors as shares in the "new" operation.

Will the City tolerate this loss of revenue whilst the dust settles? My GUESS is that they will, for, as they see it, the prize of a BA with NO future pension liabilities is well worth having. Like a supermarket, a profitable airline is hugely cash generative, and they know it.

Interestingly, the current pension proposals as they relate to pilots amount to a virtual scheme closure anyway if you have done less than about 15 years in BA. In the face of this, pilots have almost nothing to lose by going on strike and my guess is that they will if this proposal stays unchanged.

I know this will delight some readers here who eagerly await the jobs they assume will flow from all of this. The problem is that should BA get away with the current pension proposal our costs will be such that many of your levels of recompense will come under very close scrutiny - you can picture the scene, an accountants' office somewhere, a beady-eyed observer sees BA an A320 pilots doing 900 hours a year in shorthaul, short stage length flying with no pension rights and a salary less than Ry@nair offer SOME of their pilots will say: "right, we are going to have to cut our wages too".

Indeed, this is EXACTLY what WW and his advisors WANT, a "virtuous cycle" of wage cuts as each operator seeks to race to the bottom first. In that scenario, he wins every which way.

This may well be capitalism at its finest, but I dont see dentists meekly agreeing to a government contract that scr@ews them over, or GP's working for a pittance these days. Flying remains a position of vast public trust and I guess we all, have our own "bottom line". Mine is my pension - I have not enough time to make good the cuts BA are proposing such that I face flying into early old age (65) to retire on a pittance. I suspect BA know that a lot of people will either fail a medical or a sim before 65, so "saving" them even more. In the sim failure case they will ultimately boot you out early and apply an actuarial reduction to your piddling pension for "early retirement".

In the face of this I have nothing to lose by striking and everything to gain. There is a growing awareness that bulgeing airliner order books generate a need for pilots that an insurance company will underwrite. Either a better job elsewhere will come from this, or it'll be time to leave the "industry", no bad thing perhaps when we have sunk to the level of trying to compete with a carrier who charge a disabled man £15 for a wheelchair to reach the terminal.(Hello again, Ry@nair).

I've long maintained that anyone who can crack an ATPL, conversion to a jet, MCC etc etc has plenty of talent that could be used in many fields, most more positive than this one. Its a sad reflection, given that one of the pleasures of the job has been the quality of people I've flown with over the years.

In summary, I think we will see a strike the like of which the airline industry has not seen for years. I think existing BA is doomed to fail as these proposals will be rejected by all the staff groups. The city will accept a radical solution. There will be an attempt to contractorise BA flight crew. Ultimately, I think experienced pilots will be the winners. The supply is not infinite and the demand for experienced, type-rated people is rising long term. There may be bumps in the road (Iran war anyone?) but the trend is upwards.

Too much moderating going on here Mr mod, can't you take a wind up?
I've not written anything offensive or personal just at variance to your views.
You are exercising the typical Nigel arrogance and head in sand attitude that will eventually give me your job if you are not careful. There are plenty like me with the time and type experience to help Willie out when it becomes necessary.

On the terms offered Mr747, you are welcome to it. Virgin's 750 hours a year looks pretty good alongside the BA pension offer - effectively 900 hours a year and no pension. But I guess you'll be willing to do it for even less, Mr 747? What does that make you?

ShortfinalFred, you say of WW, "Can he close "exisiting" BA? Theoretically no because the size of the pension deficit, which he would have to make good on closure, dwarfs BA's reserves of cash to pay it."

On the one hand you say BA should make good and you'll strike if they don't. On the other you recognise that they can't make good.

Like the pension fund, something in your reasoning does not add up.

WW only has to make good the deficit IF he closes the pension fund NOW. The fund itself, now closed to new members, does not "mature" for another 30 to 40 years. Who can say what investment returns will be over such a period? If they are bad enough to make NAPS, the closed fund, umworkable then I suggest capitalism as an economic organising principle will be dead.

Indeed, it is widely recognised that the current pensions "crisis" is very artificially induced. If another government wins the next election and restores the dividend tax credit to pensions so notoriously stolen by Gordon Brown when Labour came to power (forget "NEW Labour" - as we've seen, its tax and spend all the way), then the outlook for pensions changes exponentially, as it would if the FRS 17 funding requirement was altered, i.e. companies did not have to continually look at an immediate snapshot of their pension liability and put that immediate snapshot against their balance sheet as a debt. Over time in the historic model of pension provision in the UK, the liabilities and assets of a fund evened out over the investment cycle. FRS 17 has forced an artificial crisis in many ways by creating an immediate "debt" on its balance sheet that a company in reality is NOT immediately called upon to pay, unless, of course, it voluntarily shuts down.

So, no, I dont accept your logic one bit. BA CAN afford to pay its existing pension liabilities, it just doesn't want to. It chooses instead to try and rip-off its employees and work them on the principle "fly till you die" - average life expectancy for a longhaul pilot retiring at 65 - 18 MONTHS - some retirement eh?! That'll fix the problem all by itself!

I re-iterate: there is going to be a strike the likes of which UK aviation has'nt seen for years. If anyone else thinks they'll win out at our expense by it, they must be deluding themselves. See previous post about the "race to the bottom".

And the source for that nugget of (I suspect) complete nonsense?

So I take it you are in favour of a massive pay cut for all pilots M.Mouse? Believe me, you may bet that IF WW succeeds in eliminating pensions at BA it will lead to a ratcheting-down of pay across the UK airline sector, but then perhaps that suits your agenda?

The Societey of British Actuaries is the source for much data related to life expectancy and pensions.

Errr.....no. I just find unsubstantiated nonsense statements lead me to question everything else written in the same post.

So please quote the actual data from which you extracted that gem because I cannot find it.

Well said S F Fred.
It will be very interesting to see Gordon take the next bite out of UK pensions, think it was 1998 for the first bite, guess he was hoping companies would act quicker and paw loads more cash into them to cover his tracks.
Looks like many have now eased the problems he made.
When he takes his second bite, no one can say anythink because we accepted first bite was OK.
Second bite will not be the last either.
Watt a state we in in the UK.
Hats off to our French friends this week who got a rubbish law changed.
Gordon should do the honest thing, revert to the tax credits pre 98, pay back all the cash, pay interest on said cash and pay a fine of at least 20% but upto 100% just like they charge Joe Public when he gets it wrong.:mad:

SFFred
Theoretical nonsense! Tell me the name of ANY PLC that has done this.. if not why not?

The board of any public company has legal obligations to the shareholders. BA soil their pants at the mere suggestion of strike action as it hammers forward bookings and hits the shareholders in the wallet - let alone the thought of winding up a profitable company!

Pensions are no more of a dilema to BA than the price of fuel, 9/11, or SARS. They are still flying.

You have just reminded me why I haven't bothered with this forum for so long.. so many self appointed experts peddling total claptrap. For those facing the decimation of their life planning this is a serious business and your brand of nonsense is unhelpful to say the least.

Rant over.:ok:

SF Fred...
I've dug up some interesting facts which don't really seem to support a life expectancy of 18 months for long-haul flight crew as you suggest.
(Source: http://www.barnett-waddingham.co.uk/...3/viewDocument)
Now, BA themselves are on record to say that life expectancy of their flight crews exceeds that of the general population by 3-5 years in this thread here:
http://www.britishairways.com/travel...c/public/en_gb
It should also be mentioned that the actuarial profession (in response to the Pension's Commission Report by Lord Turner), published a table which shows:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pd...aper1_resp.pdf

So... one can draw 2 conclusions...
1) The average life expectancy of a long-haul BA pilot will be 20+ Years from age 65 and
2) It is likely that SPA will rise beyond age 65 in the future (as proposed by Lord Turner and the actuarial profession). But whilst there is room for Flight Crew compulsory retirement to increase also - it is doubtful that it will increase beyond age 65 by the time current pensions mature. Not only is life expectancy itself increasing, but with a fixed retirement age for flight crew, the proportion of working lifetime to pensionable lifetime is decreasing. It is therefore very doubtful that the current pension arrangements would be sufficient.
I happen to believe that BA pilots are being treated VERY unfairly (and I am not one of them - although I am a BALPA member), and the real solution surely is to review the level of contributions being paid by scheme members and the Company (amongst other measures) - NOT to take away pension benefits as being proposed. If the BA pilots want to strike I would be 100% behind them - but there does need to be a real attempt by BALPA, their members and (not least) the Scheme's Trustees and Financial advisors to reach an equitable solution.

Its my future too Blueup, thanks very much! Claptrap is it? Why, then, is a member of the leadership team saying that NorthWest airlines engineered a trip to Chapter 11 precisely in order to rid itself of pension obligations and yet, ON THE FACE of it, that option is denied BA, HOWEVER IT REMAINS AN ATTRACTIVE ROUTE IF WE CAN ACHIEVE IT LOCALLY, he went on to say.

This is a RUMOUR network mate, and that rumour comes from a member of the leadership team, as BA laughingly call it.

Oh yes, this is serious alright, steal the pension that I contracted for and I go right out on strike. "Self appointed expert" - you pompous ass. Thats why I avoided pp network for a while too, to avoid self righteous j@rks like you.

The changes BA have put forward only mention T and C reductions.

Why don't they talk of keeping the same T and C's and even ask staff to pay more in.

Looks to me like BA want out of pensions full stop.

If the pensions get watered down this time and again next time wolf at the door, staff will be happy enough to shut the company pension down and take cash out.

BA are playing a very cool hand.........:suspect:

SFFred..
With the greatest of respect it is claptrap.. we don't have Chapter 11, there is no mechanism (to my knowledge) in UK or EU law. It's a non-starter!

I take your point it may be peddled by a suit and this is indeed a rumour network. However the suit has you doing his dirty work for him. More naive colleagues (not just pilots read this) are overwhelmed by the BA bull!!!!! machine already. Our tuggie this evening said exactly that and was resigned to the fate BA have chosen for him.

That is why (BA) BALPA are employing experts.. to sort the cr*p from reality and gosh there has been a lot of cr*p peddled thus far!

See you on the picket line:ok:

SFF, you intrigue me. On the one hand you have some very reasoned and well researched points on the source of this issue. Your response seems less reasoned however, and more from the knee-jerk man-the-barricades school.

I raised the point of tax credits about 10 pages ago, albeit not as eloquently as you. And that's the rub. This is a crisis created by a government that private business is having to sort out. It goes far wider than BA. All the major companies that used to run final salary schemes are closing them to new members and, in some cases, closing them all together. Companies are asking people to work longer and that is exactly what the Turner report says.

This crisis is not created by BA. The airline is in a reasonable financial state by comparison with other airlines but it's not exactly cash rich (despite what look like eye-popping numbers). As BA Beancounter says, all the cash is pretty much allocated on future commitments.

The basis on which these schemes were set up was that corporate earnings paid to pension funds were not taxed twice. As I understand it, they are now taxed twice thanks to Gordon's tax xhanges in 98. So the pension funds have less cash to meet their obligations.

This is a political issue. Vote Labour out and have the Conservatives remove that tax burden on pension funds.

As for manning the barricades and destroying BA, I simply do not understand that mindset. You will cut off your nose to spite your face. Half a cake is better than no cake.

Play brinkmanship, sure, but recognise that it's a dangerous game. Having worked out in reasoned terms what the source of the crisis is, a reasoned response is what is called for to maximise your benefits. Anything else and you're going to lose.

SFF ignores the fact that his sweeping assertion has just been proved to be what it appeared - arrant nonsense and launches into personal attacks and more fantasy. He may have had some good points but has neatly illustrated why nothing he says can now be taken seriously.



Regarding increased contributions they alone have very little impact on the pension deficit. The one thing that has a very dramatic effect is a change to the accrual rates.

I think it would be fair to say that if BA take half our cake they will be back for the other half next year, and then beat the crap out of us until we give them our apple!
This is less about the survival of BA post Brownian economics, and more about an opportunist money grabbing management.

This is true. However, on principle I will not work for a company for half a cake when it used to pay me a whole one and can still afford to. If I'm forced to work for half a cake, I guarantee you it will not be for BA. I won't especially enjoy watching them sink but there will be an element of satisfaction knowing that I won't be spending my remaining career working for a bunch of thieves.

Actuary* speaking.
 

If the "average life expectancy for a longhaul pilot retiring at 65" was 18 months, that means for every such pilot who lived for more than 10 years about 8 would have to die within one year of retirement to make the figures work - I find this unlikely.

On the subject of Final Salary pension schemes, those who attribute much of the problem to Gordon Brown are (IMHO) spot on. However, closing schemes to new entrants often makes a lot of sense. Final Salary schemes only work in an environment where staff can reasonably expect to remain in the scheme for at least 10 years - preferably well over 20 (this is the amount of time it takes to build up a reasonable fund value, capable of providing a worthwhile, 'frozen' pension)). There are very few occupations left where this is the case, although (as a complete outsider) I could well imagine that BA flight crew could be one of them.

* an actuary is someone that always wanted to be an accountant, but lacked the personality for it ...

Rolls-Royce proposes pensions shake-up
BBC web news
"Aerospace engine maker Rolls-Royce has announced it may close its final salary pension schemes to new members. The firm has 21,373 active members in three pension schemes, one of which has been closed to new members since 1999."

Now the other two may do likewise, with the company in return putting in a £500m lump sum across the three and increasing its contributions.

The move is an attempt to reduce the combined deficit of the schemes, which stood at £1.28bn on 31 December 2005.

Have some of you lot ever visited planet Earth?

Barking.

Well here it is, the link I was looking for where the mortality information came from -apparently a Boeing study based on retiree data.

http://home.att.net/~coachthee/Archi...rementage.html

I live in the real world Mr Midland. I knew the contract I signed and I have watched BA rack-up record debt levels by buying pure cr@pola, whilst running an operation that makes a whelk stall look like a model of efficiency, and now I am expected to pay for the profligacy of others with my pension. I tell you one thing for sure - if WW gets his "real world view" imposed on OUR T's and C's then, to maintain your company's "real world competitive advantage", yours are in for a beating as sure as eggs are, well, eggs.

The raw fact is I flat-out will not accept the cancellation of my contract, the doing of which will enrich Mr W@lsh beyond the dreams of Cresus, (the particularly sordid part of the whole proposition). If BA cancel the pension, OR bidline, then its game over. If we are all going down the contractor route, and I still maintain that this is the route WW would like to take - indeed his pension "proposals" are so outlandish as to all but guarantee a strike, which makes me think he is trawling for a shut down excuse, then what is there to lose? Sure, I should be an altruist and toil away, mortality data in mind, for the better good of BA, like it was a religious order perhaps. I dont think so - the current management "team" are set on out bully-boying even Mr O Le@ry's cack-handed mob. I've seen more loyalty amongst parking attendants than they can drum up between them, and indeed I now feel the raw contempt for them they so regularly show us.

No, its game over for that sorry lot and I dont give a ..mn. Like it or not, and I'd be the first to say the independants have had a raw deal over many years - the Dan Air takeover being a particularly sorry example - BA WAS the benchmark contract. If they get away with this then EVERY UK professional pilot is going to feel a very chill wind indeed - their companies will HAVE to in order to maintain a cost differential.

I will fight for my contract and if we lose then its pastures new and no looking back.

Well, that data is

1) 25+ years out of date

2) Applies to Boeing aerospace workers, not pilots (note, Boeing workers retiring before 1980 would have been working in WW2 and cold war - before many OHSA regulations. I guess took in lots of nasty fumes, asbestos, etc)

3) SPEEA (Boeing union) have debunked it, and say the 18 month claim is incorrect

http://www.speea.org/general_info/files/life.htm

OK Mr freehills, why are so many of my contempories losing their medicals in their mid fourties? At 900 hours a year shorthaul "the BA way" you'd be lucky to get to our existing NRA of 55, let alone make it to the new proposed one of 65. BA's proposal amounts to fly at CAP 371 limits until you a) fail a medical b) fail a sim repeatedly or c) last-out till "retirement" by which time the environment you will have worked in for so long will have materially shortened your life expectancy in retirement.

I dont accept past BA mortality data based on an NRA of 50 and flying hours a third less than people average now. There is no comparison to today's BA.

Moving on from arguments about mortality data, within itself the "proposal" is skewed against flight crew: ground staff work for 2 more years to achieve the new pensionable age, pilots work for..............ten more years. Average loss of pension for anyone with around 15years to go or more to the the "OLD" NRA of 55 and who carries on to the new age of 65 - circa 40 to 45%.

I repeat - this "proposal" represents such a grievous assault on pilot remuneration whilst being skewed deliberately against flight crew as against other groups of staff that it CAN ONLY be designed to provoke a strike. That being so - what outcome does WW forsee flowing from the aftermath?

I suggest that the outcome he seeks is the contractorisation of BA flightcrew on terms that will astonish even the UK independant sector. I also suggest he will fail for one precise reason: BA pilots will not and can not accept this and will strike until WW is quietly removed back to the fair and green land of Ireland whence he came. Those that think WW can win better have pretty deep pockets because they are going to need them.

Unfortunately mate, what the pension pays out is not part of your contract, and is not technically a legally binding promise.

Though I agree wholeheartedly with ensuring that people are not screwed out of rightfully earned pensions, there is - as I have said before - a complete head in sand mentality running through this thread.

Phil Capron
 

I'm sure that some BA pilots will remember that BA studied mortality rates (of BA pilots and found them to be very similar if not better than the population at large.Pilots are generally fitter than....
Being very cynical for a moment,BA I believe have a very strong wish to post a dividend.When this pension debate is concluded I don't think shareholders will have to wait very long.
Not even BA is daft enough to believe it will get everything it wants.Hang on in there everybody.Retirement is nice.Don't spoil it.ATB.

Sorry for asking what might seem to be a dumb question, but exactly what does Willie Walsh stand personally to gain if the pension issue is settled on BA's terms.

Is there a specific bonus linked to this in his contract or is his bonus linked to achieving the 10% margin overall?

Mark.

From BA's last financial report the remuneration committee (or whatever it is called) awarded the senior management bonuses of between 150 and 250% of basic salary conditional upon achieving the aimed for 10% operating margin.

A note was included that these bonuses were also a way of avoiding the same managers exceeding Robber Brown's pension CAP.

And they want me to take a reduction in my pension?

And therin you have encapsulated EXACTLY what this is all about.

a simple equation;- WW screws everyone over by taking away the pensions= more chance of BA hitting a 10% profit margin= 250% bonus for WW and the most senior managers.

Well they can :mad: off

Thanks M. Mouse, that's most illuminating. I've mislaid my copy of the financial report.

At the Owning Our Future workshops, motivation is highlighted as a particular issue. It's indeed "motivating" to know that our efforts in working to achieve a 10% margin will be so rewarding for some.

This seems to go on and one. Some relevant facts are:

1) This is about as good a deal as is ever going to be offered and is very similar in structure to the best of those being offered by other UK companies in the same situation.
2) Disregarding APS, NAPS, allied with BAs salary advantages, will still be the best deal available in British aviation.
3) Pension rights gained to date are unchanged. It is only the future accrual rate which changes, along with the move of the retirement age to 60 ( something which many pilots , other than those wanting a 5 year "afterlife" stint with SQ etc ,have been wanting for years).
4) Neither the City nor the Government would lift a finger to save BA if it went under. Financially short haul has never been better than marginal and the profitable long haul has been starved of investment in additional aircraft for the past 5 years.
5) A restructured BA would probably look much like a new BOAC and shorthaul would either be abandoned or franchised. Other operators (UK and EU) would quickly take on the better routes at lower costs. There would be no need for them to buy short haul from BA,- they would just let it collapse and then move in.
6) The opportunities for displaced BA pilots after after a corporately terminal strike would not look rosy. They would of course lose their seniority and would be at the back of the queue for jobs with whoever took over the routes. Many would have to start again as turboprop F/Os with regionals or as contractors for overseas operators. Careers would be over.
7) A strike in anger may give a temporary surge of adrenalin, but it would risk far more than any likely gain. If BA went under, far more would be lost in future pension rights and payments for all existing and retired staff than would be gained by accepting the current offer, give or take the odd tweak to the detail.

The reality is that this is a time for cool heads and some serious thinking about the shape of the world , the need for management, unions and staff to take a new look at BA as if it were starting in business afresh and design a new future. Strikes have never saved a business or industry,- just hastened its demise. There is no perfect company and overall BA is a pretty good one. For its own people to destroy it would be absolute folly which they would regret for years to come.

I'd have more regrets about doing nothing and working for a bunch of thieves. You seem to be deliberately avoiding the point that they can afford to pay the pension as it is. Why?

Heres an alternative way of looking at your facts:
1) This is deal is poor if you have short time left in BA, it's eve worse than a career average scheme if you have a long time left.

2) NAPS, frozen at todays levels of acrual, allied with 10 years stagnation of seniority, is not the best deal in British aviation.

3) Future accrual rates in real terms will be poor thanks to the 2.5% cap on pensionable pay rises. The retirement age will inevitably rise to 65, not 60.

4) The 'we need new aircraft' mantra doesn't wash. We don't need new aircraft. Even the oldest 747s aren't due for replacement for another 5 years.

5) The current and last CEOs have ruled out your model for a restructured BA. I think they know the business better than you. BA short haul collapse = loss of 30% of long haul pax who transfer through LHR. It also means loss of an awful lot of slots at LHR to other operators, despite the acquisition of LHR slots being a stated strategic objective of the board.

6) What world do you live in? Have you not seen the huge shortage of experienced jet pilots? Where do you think these newcomer airlines are going to find 600 experienced A320 pilots at short notice along with sufficient TREs? You sound distinctly managerial in your prophecy of doom outside the company. You also assume people are only too willing to jump ship from their existing bases for the prospect of a new FO position at the UKs most overcrowded airfield slap bang in the middle of the UKs most overheated housing market.

7) A strike in anger will show BA they've pushed us too far this time. If these proposals go through then my NAPS pension won't be worth the paper the contract is written on. Walsh won't push BA to bankruptcy, he can't afford to.

Sorry Skylion, but your post is disingenuous at best. Other companies have made significantly greater strides to covering their pensions deficit and this "proposal" remains totally unacceptable both to the Pilots AND all other groups of staff, notwithstanding the fact that it is skewed against flightcrew by seeking TEN more years work for a pension that will be significantly reduced as against two more years for groundstaff.

The reduction in inflation protection and capping any future payrises forevermore at RPI will allow inflation to erode the true value of any pension benefit to a negligable level within a very short period, such that the pension will become all but worthless. We ALL know this, AND we know that WW and a handful of acolytes will enrich themselves in the process of our losing any hope of retirement. Other companies have admitted that pensions are quite simply deferred pay - not one of us will accept the circa 30% to 40 % pay cut that this represents, and it would be organisational suicide for BALPA to do so.

This may well be the opening shot in a long campaign, however BA had better make a substantial improvement in its offer to the flightcrew, if not the whole company, and it knows it.

Interesting research note from a city banking house suggesting Ry@nair may have to park new aircraft due to a lack of experienced pilots, particularly Captains. Having been on the receiving end of numerous "initiatives" to save costs whilst the rest of BA merrily quaff capuccinos at Waterside I think you will find pilots unlikely to offer yet more concessions. Equally, if BA "melts down" I dont think the outcome will be as bleak for many as you paint (good propaganda job though - sure you are'nt a manager?). Pilots are needed and there is a growing shortage of [I][B]experienced[B][I] people. Not a time to quietly accept the end of our financial futures in order to enrich Mr W@lsh and a few cronies who will soon leave BA anyway.

WW bonus is more than just operating margin, so get over that particular piece of incorrect information. Skylion, I admire your cool-headed approach. A pragmatic approach may wring further concession from BA without the letting of blood.


Beaver Eager, if you think this is EXACTLY about WW getting a fat bonus at your expense your so far off beam it's not true. All the big public companies are closing and re-basing their pensions.

Human Factor, as I understand it, they can't afford to pay the pensions. That is what the deficit is all about; the assets in the fund will not meet the liabilities.

I am strongly of the view that a BA collapse will have serious repercussions for BA pilots, especially those in the short haul game. Sure, past CEOs have said they don't want to close it. It does bring in passengers and the cost of closure (redundancies, aircaft leases etc) is large. If the company collapses, however, because the pilots refuse to fly, many of those liabilties don't stand. BA2 arises, takes the good bits and cans the bad bits. Leave many of the marginal short-haul routes to the LCCs and concentrate on the really important feeder traffic (UK and euro capitals only). So a lot of you will be out of work. And not all the routes will be taken straight away. Skylion is right; other airlines will think twice before hiring short-sighted, hot-headed folks who drove their company into the ground. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, huh?

Hand Solo, you are right, Walsh will not push BA to bankruptcy. You will, by the sounds of things, and who's going to lose more then?

Be cool, not emotional. There's too much revolutionary fervour going on here, too much personalisation of the debate based on a pre-conceived notion of what WW represents. Not enough rationalisation of this in the context of the broader business landscape. Why do I care? I don't, really. I am not BA. I do have sympathy for the situation you are in. If you want to minimise your loses, however, the barricades approach ain't gonna work.

I presume you didn't see the presentation that many of us got to see. ;)

By the way, it's not a liability. It's a provision. There's a vast difference as any decent accountant should be able to tell you.

and as the full impact of Sept 1tth 2001 struck home the assets in the company couldn't meet the debt to the banks, yet here we are still. Thats because the debts to the bank didn't have to be paid off immediately in a single lump sum and neither does the pension.

So which of these route pairs do you think brings in most money: Rome or Milan? Frankfurt or Berlin? BA operate very few marginal short haul routes from LHR, they send those to LGW. LHR routes stand or fall on their own performance. If they don't perform we don't fly there. The slot could be used more profitably elsewhere.

Yep, when you need 300 experienced A320 pilots in a hurry you can afford to be choosy. Plus you'll have time to personally grill each candidate on their views on the downfall of BA and their part in it. Assuming they'll all be honest with you.

We were short of pilots when SABENA went bust. I told my boss that all our problems were over. He told me that he would never consider hiring a SABENA pilot for at least two years for it would take them that long to get hungry.

We didn't and we trained ab-initios in preference and it was a great success.

Get ready to spend at least two years on the ground guys if you really do decide to destroy yourselves.