HZ123 Yes, exactly so. I quoted that the govt had rejected this report which is, in any case, only advisory. My intention was to highlight that the subject is well within the public view. There is no doubt that the govt will do nothing (even though they are part of the problem!) but with the subject being aired by so many groups, the BA pilots do not have to start informing the public - only increase that information.

I think the whole pension situation, not just the pensions at BA need to be highlighted. Other companies have pension schemes too and face the same problems, I don't think the responsibility for this lies solely with BA management.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4814608.stm

BA pension issue update
 

WW will make an official announcement at the end of March, but the press are reporting that BA staff know that he gives them 2 options:- a) pay in significantly more or b) lose privileges and change work practices to accommodate savings. Which will it be?

Rumour has it that NRA to be raised to 58, (obviously if one wanted to you could work beyond this after oct 2006) and staff contributions to rise by 50% the former does not bother the latter does, but hey in evey negotiations you got to start somewhere.

Well DA Dog....It bothers me..my contract says that BA will pay me a final salary pension at PP23 when I retire at 55 years of age. I have paid my share of the pension contributions and accepted a lower than market salary for the 17 years that I worked for B.A. I'm afraid that they can't have it both ways.

The senior managers have known what the options have been for a week now. Another meeting has been held today to find out what they thought of them after mulling them over.

Apparently lots of things that employees have said have been taken into consideration, so many of the extreme solutions are not in the final options.

Sounds to me like you guys are already getting the jist of it from somewhere.

Interesting to note the BAE shares went up 25% after announcing they sorted out their pension problems.

They can announce what they like, they haven't consulted their airframe drivers yet ;-)

BA salaries lower than market rates? Er, I don't think so. On one hand, they pay better than many, so one can't winge too hard. And secondly, if they offer a sum of money and people accept it then that is the market rate. Think about it...

Given the financial deal included the pension that was market rate. If they reduce the pension the overall package must therefore have dipped below that market rate.

Two different things. Change in pension is a change in your terms, rightly or wrongly, and what this debate is about.

But in the first instance, one worked for a given amount of money and benefits. That was market rate. One can't say, after 17 years, that it was below market rate.

Sugden This is where I'll have to disagree with you...BA pilots were paid less than the market rate for years. with the promise that we would retire on a half decent pension. It is only since we incorporated box payments, etc into Basic Pay that jumior long haul Captains now take home more money than some long haul Pursers and CSD's. I'm sure Rainboe will wade in here...:hmm: Flight Ops management has accepted this status quo with comments such as " ahh, but you pilots will retire on a half decent package....well, it's swings and roundabouts....you guys lose on the salary, but gain on the pension" . I'm afraid that if that is the case, then I want the last 17 yrs of my back pay at competitors rates. We'll discount the Americans as they were slightly overpaid. I'll accept a basket of Air France and Iberia pilots salaries. Or put it another way, if the company can see fit to pay some CC 3500 quid a monmth, then as F/O on a Jumbo I reckon I would have been worth 6000 or 7000 quid a month. Better think again on issuing those bonds B.A, i reckon you could owe a lot of pilots , a lot of money in back pay. Alternatively, pay some of the near 2 Billion in cash that you are sitting on into the pension fund and then everyone is happy.

maxy101, I think we're locked in an argument over semantics regarding what "market rate" means. My final word on it; the salary plus benefits (including expected pension) was the market rate. If it wasn't, no-one would have gone for it. So I don't think that for 17 years you had worked below market rate. I can agree with the assertion, however, that a change in the expectation of your pension on retirement changes the overall equation, thus taking you below general market rates and below what you would have voluntarily worked for. So while you HAD not worked at below market rates, you may find, following possible actions from your employer, that you HAVE worked below market rates... if that makes sense. I started this sideshow on the meaning of words and apologise if I've dragged the debate into the sidings. (And yes, I do need to get out more.)

Back to the question of possible actions. I said earlier in the thread that the BA pilots have my sympathies. That said, I urged a level headed response. That's the best way to maximise the benefits for yourselves. BigBrutha, I know it's an emotive and charged issue, but you would not rather BA went under, despite what your anger may tell you. You'll be worse off. I'm not saying bend over and take what's being given without protest. I guess I am just saying that revenge is a dish best served cold.

And going back up the thread to the post by Paxboy, the government saying it's not repsonsible for corporate pension schemes. They are responsible. They removed the pension exemption on advanced corporation tax on dividends a few years ago. This means that dividend cashflows into the pension funds are now subject to tax at 20% where previously they were exempt from tax. Pension funds pay the pensioners with the dividend flows. Suddenly they're getting 20% less and the actuaries are telling them they're under funded. I think the government, master Brown in particular, are substantially responsible for the current pension mess. They should not be allowed to wash their hands of it so easily, but I guess that's a debate for another forum...

BALPA to go it alone???
 

Just heard a rumour that BALPA and BA have been in negotiations for the pilots only. Looks like the pilots will be ok and rest of us will be pensionless by this time next year!

PLM

Err - who did you want BALPA to be in negotiations for??

Flap62

You just beat me to it!

More of a dig at the employer than BALPA ant the pilots. Green with envy, I am!! :}

(SH)amicus has been very quiet. :bored:

PLM

No negotiations have taken place between BALPA and BA, and lets just say I am in the know.

All will be revealed thursday.

So hold onto your hats, and get your flasks out. It will be cold on that picket line.:eek:

Just a a side thought.

If say the majority of the pilot community at BA vote for a change in pension (i.e. different to the one you have now and one approved by BALPA), what will those of you do who are expressly opposed to ANY change going to do?

Leave BALPA? Leave BA? Just go along with it and accept defeat?

Just interested that's all. As this is all going to come to head in a few days and I'm sure that many must have considered this option, as well as would you be standing outside Waterside around a burning oil drum.

Does anyone think there is any link between the recent rise in the share price and any done deal on the pension ?:confused:

How can there be a "done deal" on the pension when it hasn't even been discussed yet?