Much like the Private Eye (UK satirical magazine) cartoon depicting 'Scenes you seldom see', when have you ever heard an employee of any company say 'of course morale/motivation is on the increase'? The trouble whenever anybody starts tallking of morale it decreases!

Tristar you clearly have little understanding of how business operates and if you have been in BA 10 years and care to look objectively at BA it has changed massively in that time and addressed many of the legacy issues from the good old nationalised industry days. There is still very much more to be done.

Is the product sufficient? Virgin have trumped us in business class with the Upper Class Suite, which is comparable and arguably better. Almost every other major airline has a flat bed in business class now. Ours may be selling well but it's too narrow for me (I'm hardly broad) and it's very hard. An upgrade of our primary cash generator is necessary and currently one of the few examples of BA keeping their eye on the ball. The upgrade is only just beginning (note thats after the deadline by which WW said the pensions had to be sorted) and the fleet upgrade won't come until the pensions have been sorted.

M Mouse, yes there is a lot more to be done, but in the right order. I know how businesses operate, and I know why they fail! They let themselves go - to a point that its virtually impossible to recover from - I say the competition from the low cost carriers again... Once the rot starts, its very hard to get rid of it, and let me tell you that BA has a lot of rot still in it! The domestic scene is on the brink (exception of LHR and LCY). LGW is in ruins and if it didnt turn itself around then that too would go - no hesitation. With competition from easyjet on domestic services into LGW from the regions, who knows how long the domestic scene at LGW will last...

Yes BA has changed over my 10 year tenure - but tell me if going on line for just about everything is the way to save money and attract customers. BA is a people-focused business, and personal contact is what we USED to pride our self on. Not now. I cant tell you how many times passengers have come up to me and my fellow empolyees to complain and vent frustration at lack of personal care and attention. Yes it is cheaper to do it all on line, but at what price in terms of tickets lost...

Oh and the Private Eye sketch... Yes I agree. Just ask anyone in BA right now and no one will ever say morale is on the increase, but hey, there isnt much morale left at all presently. Strike threats by various departments (Christmas bookings down already...), court action threat, pension defecit and the shutdown of the regions, and possible closure of GLA cabin crew base. Thats before the cost of renewing the LGW fleet and partial B747 fleet replacement! Dont be fooled into thinking T5 will save the day.

:mad:

411A, your entire attitude seems to be "I haven't got it, so no-one else should either." Spoken like a true commie, looks like Joe McCarthy didn't look under your bed.

Tristar500 - you are starting to sound like King Canute sitting on the beach commanding the tide to retreat. You cannot turn back the tide of online progress. Online check in is here, and it is popular with the passengers. I would rather check in online than queue for 20 minutes. If they could just find the way to avoid me queuing for the fast bag drop it would be even better. People are booking tickets online in preference to waiting on the phone for 15 mins for a salesperson. They do that because they compare prices online and then buy what they find. Self service check in is faster than queueing at the airport especially on a busy day.

On the one hand you complain that we can't compete with the locos, then you say that the domestic network is disappearing and we should be a people-orientated business. Well I'm going to have to give you a harsh dose of reality but if you want the domestic network to succeed then you are going to have to start emulating the locos in terms of cost base, because the premiums we can charge don't cover the cost of the extra service we offer, especially when many of the extra services we offer, such as baggage handling, pushback tugs etc don't even add value - they cost more and perform worse than ground handling agents. I used to get a lot less hassle and a lot more on time departures on a turnaround at NCL than I did at EDI, and as a passenger I saw no significant difference in the service levels landside.

Solution ?
 

Hi, first post, and let me first make out, I'm not attacking anyone personaly, I'm purly making my point of view.

Surly doesn't everything link together. BA want (and depending on how you see it ,need) new aircrafts, that costs lots and lots of money. But that would be diverting money from your pension right ?
BA needed the new club world, and again cost money, and again, you could say that was taking money away from the pension problems.

So, you need money for your pensions, but BA need to pay for the NCW, new aircrafts, all the other costs, and the debt. But when you threaten to strike, you take bookings away, that means BA loose money. Your penions won't exaclty be too bad even with this change, your wages won't be too bad and you are still amoung the highest paid people in the airline (I'm refering to Captains)

One question, why should you get special treatment ?, other jobs have had their pensions and wages changed, why should only you get special treatment ? If BA offered to keep your pensions and retirement age the same, but everyone else had to sacrafise, would you prepare to strike becuase they have to make a sacrafise ?, saddly, I don't think so. It seems like a 'me me me' aproach. If the SM's were protesting for a better pension like you, you'd most likely be raising hell.

You complain about these 'high paid and greedy managers' and yet, I know that pilots are higher paid than most SM's that you refer to. Infact, when there were MG and SM cuts, there was a notice of Q and A's, and one of the questions was 'can pilot managers go back to being a pilot if they are laid off', and the answer was YES. No other departments got that option.

Eveyone wants to make themselves out as the poor guy, or the baddly treated guy. If you love the airline as much as you do, why don't you make the sacrafise and work untill 60, everyone else has to, so why not you ? Would you rather have a cut pension and a job, or force BA under ?

Wrightbrothers

:bored: I'm somewhat surprised that this nonsense has gone unchallenged! I thought that 'Rover' went under while managers were busy ripping the heart out of it and coining it over the workforce. There was no revenge over the unions as they had already been declared impotent by being inflexible and threatening strikes at every drop of every hat. Other aspects of Leyland (e.g. Land Rover at Solihull and Mini at Oxford) seem to be doing reasonably ok - they have been through hard times admittedly but are still around.
If we are comparing ourselves to a defunct nationalised manufacturing poorhouse, then is there any real hope for us?
We can be better than that surely?

Re: BA pilots 'prepared to strike'
 

Being a member of the certfied oily rag population, many of us would jump at the chance of being represented by a professional organisation, and not the Sh'Amicus we have now. I would also like to add that the majority of us are in NAPS and are willing to fight for our contracted pensions.

Not being in the company, but a mere customer, I have no position or even real knowledge on the pensions issue.

But I can say this: from the passenger's point of view, the current Club World is out of date. The upgrade is definitely required. BA will never be top of the pack, but it must always be near it. And the hard product (ie the seat) has started slipping fast down the quality rankings.

Also, you have to remember this. Passengers who can choose their carrier have a lot of inertia. By the passenger figures drop noticeably, you've already lost a lot of people who will be very difficult to get back - when they've found someone else they're comfortable with, they'll stick with their new buddies. Then you're in a double-whammy: you're spending money on upgrading the cabin at just the time that your cash flow and profitability take a dive because you didn't act sooner. And you end up spending the money as an emergency recovery measure, rather than a pro-active measure to keep the passengers where they are and to prevent the crisis from occurring.

If anything, NGCW is 18-24 months later than it should have been. There have been other priorities, and the financial situation of the company is the healthier for it. But it really couldn't have been delayed any longer. That would have been bad for everyone, employees included.

Are BA pilots really going to strike the Company into the dark ages (I'm not a pilot but I am a BA employee) and if so, can you tell me when as I'd like to avoid the chaos!
What happens to the pension fund then?:bored:

Quite the contrary, elNino, I do have it, but not from a company, I saved and provided my own.

Airline employees simply need to realise that large carriers are not much interested in their pilots welfare after retirement, so they had better save a little each month for the enevitable pension shortfall.

And...forget the country club dues, tennis club memberships, BMW's in the garage, boat in the harbor etc for if they don't they are likely to find that retirement is just slightly more speculative than they had figured on.

The BA CEO is surely right when he says...loyalty has no value.
Not true in years gone by, necessarily, but certainly true today...in spades.
Like it or lump it...and I expect few will like it very much.

Just the facts.
BA is NOT Imperial Airways anymore.
Long gone.

Only if Willie Walsh and the other 'leadership team' members persist with trying to screw my retirement more than the Government has made necessary. Funny enough that also just happens to mean improved bonuses for them as well should they succeed.

Trebles all round I say.




Why does 411A have such a massive chip on his shoulder?

Hopefully not. It won't be our decision though. That's for Willie and his mates to decide. Don't be too concerned as it won't last more than a couple of days before the City make him do a deal. Remember, the money is there (BA put it on the table on Friday) to give everyone, not just the pilots, a fair deal but BA are not interested. All they want to do is increase their bonuses at our expense.

Not sure if you've noticed that they've been feathering their nests over the last few days by dumping shares. Willie and Keith made just under £1.5million between them last week. If you check the latest financial press, five directors (including one who has a significant connection to NAPS) have dumped just over 1,300,000 shares at 487.5p each. My maths makes that an average of £1.25million each. That's about the size of my overall pension pot when I retire.

The dark ages will be the least of their worries.

Demise of Bacon - a rehearsal?
 

It may pay you all to take a close eye on how WW is disposing of BA Connect now that it has been conveniently used to rub out BAR and has served its purpose.

A proportion of Bacon staff are in a FS pension scheme very similar to NAPS. It too is in deficit and prior to the slashing exercise, a plan had been urgently put in place to fix this. Now we know why there was such time pressure to get this done. :ugh:

To make Bacon sellable BA have now had to top up the fund by a significant amount in order to keep the regulators off their backs. The problem now is that in order for the scheme to continue to be viable, it requires the new owner to continue to contribute.

Even though the BA top up has meant that the new owner’s (Flybe) required contribution rate would be relatively modest (probably similar to the MP scheme), not surprisingly there appears to be some reluctance on the part of Jim French to take this on. If Flybe do refuse to support the Scheme, then it could be forced into a windup and the creditors would be taken care of in the usual order. So those already receiving a pension get paid first, whilst current serving staff (and those who have left the company but not currently in receipt of a pension) would be at the bottom of the list and might not receive much at all if indeed anything. Meanwhile WW washes his hands of the whole thing. :(

If we assume the worst and BA avoid their responsibilities and leave Bacon staff high and dry, you can guarantee that it will be used as a template for WW’s next disposal coming to a place nearer and nearer the M25 soon.

Concerned - soon to be destitute Bacon pensioner of Birmingham.

Chip?
 

Certainly no massive chip, M. Mouse, just reality.

The pilots (and others) at BA should have gotten the very strong hint about company funded pensions when the Mirror Group (ala Robert Maxwell) had their, shall we say...slight problem, and many were left high and dry.

But no, I expect many just put their heads in the sand and ignored.
Pilots, collectively, are really not very smart.
Individually, they do much better.

Nowhere is this truth more evident than ALPA in the USA.

Quite frankly, it's rather amusing watching this from the western side of the great devide.

In short...YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Some BA pilots are actually more initimately acquianted with the above than you may think. As far as heads in the sand goes, as all of us are well aware of the history of UK company bosses ripping off pension schemes either "legally" or otherwise, I think most of us are pretty clued up.

No longer the case since April or May 2005 (not completly certain of the exact date). Legislation changed that anomaly.

And in reply to Chippy of Texas, quite what a crook like Maxwell illegally using a pension fund to illegally prop up his house of cards has to do with the price of eggs I am not sure.

Why?
 

M Mouse and others - You have replied about whether you feel up for a strike and how long that will last. You haven't answered the other question - and then what happened to our pension fund?
I'm interested - are you?

Trouble is the BACON pension scheme is under Manx law (and is not part of UK legislation or Pension Protection Fund). So what you say is not true for us (sadly).

Why?
 

M Mouse and others - You have replied about whether you feel up for a strike and how long that will last. You haven't answered the other question - and then what happens to our pension fund?
I'm interested - are you?

Not Texas, M. Mouse, Arizona, and you will indeed find out soon enough.
Those working for BA, and of course BALPA, are in for a rude awakening, as the BA management (such as it is..and it ain't much, to be sure, but smart, in a devious sort of way) will stitch you up, screwed, blued and tatooed much to your disappointment, I'm sure.
And, it won't be apparent yet, down the road...without a doubt.
Better save now, otherwise...sorrow ahead for many.
BALPA is a toothless tiger, just like ALPA, in the USA.
Lots of luck, you will surely need it, in spades.

EOM.

Here we go again. Arizonas least informed know-it-all shares his poisonous views of the world with us all, unhindered by knowledge or insight. Is there nothing he doesn't consider himself an expert on, or any situation about which he doesn't want to tell us 'how it's going to be'?

All that Arizona sun has addled old 411a's bitter brain, like a bad egg. "Pilots are dumb"; "eat dirt and die"; "work for my make-believe airline for peanuts"; "its not even a job, let alone a career"; "profession is an inappropriate term"; "bus-drivers"; "live like a monk and feed your family from WalMart unless you want to starve in retirement" - on and on you drone, 411a. What next, go on, surprise us, tell us why you feel this way? On the other hand, dont bother...: "its all done by computers these days, innit?"; "You lot just sit there and look out the window", etc. etc. The list goes on.

Where do you see the future of airline flying 411a, and who would you like flying your family around? What would you see as an appropriate compensation level? And, back on-thread, what do you really know about the BA pension situation, except that you hope we all lose every last part of the package we have?

Sniping like you do makes me think of embittered ex-management types. Bonus not quite up to scratch was it, after you'd perhaps sh*fted all your colleagues?

BALPA's proposal is a compromise BA would be advised to accept. 411a doesn't even know the detail of either BA's plans or BALPA's proposal, which says all we need to know about his "input" to the debate.

I've recently been to PHX for the first time and found the folks there "real friendly".

There is always the exception to the rule.

Mods: is it possible to 'un-invite' contributors to threads that one starts?

Meanwhile, the pension debate continues. The directors are busy dumping share options whilst peddling untruths to the employees in official company communications.

We can only hope that the 'willy-waving' will cease and the management will see the sense in what BALPA's pension experts are telling them.

Of course the answer is that I care.

I also care about somebody trying to lie and cajole me into accepting the destruction of my retirement income while at the same time feathering his own short term nest.

I am quite prepared to accept that I have to work longer for less, unfortunately now a way of the world since robber Brown dipped into the pension funds.

I am not prepared to be screwed for the rest of my life while watching WW and his ilk sail off into the sunset at my expense.

I will not roll over and neither will probably the majority of my colleagues. If WW does not accept an honourable compromise then he, you and I will wave goodbye to it all but regrettably it is not my sole choice but WW's.

My pension comparison that came with the new proposal letter from Charlie Maunder doesn't look too bad for me (someone who expected to work on until 65 with another company after retiring from BA at 55).

My break even age is 56.3 years under NAPS III and 58.0 years under NAPS IV (into which I'd be paying less right now I believe).

Now I don't trust the company at all on such matters, so I will wait for a more detailed explanation from BALPA (the illustration states that it doesn't include the year I transferred into the scheme or fact that I've been paying 45ths instead of 52nds for the past five years).

Anyway, having joined BA at age 40, my final pension at 65 under either scheme looks like it's going to be more than double what it would have been at 55 and I'll still be working in a decent job for that extra ten years too.

So it ain't too bad for someone who sees his pension as retirement income rather than a cash cow for the last ten years of my employment. I know what the leglislation is designed to allow (continue working whilst drawing the pension you accrued until age 55), but that's not what it should be about IMHO. If I've still got a good job, why would I need my pension? I genuinely don't see it as too bad...

But...

The reason for my posting though is to state that I will still vote to strike if BALPA recommend it. Not just because of pensions... But because this is the line in the sand for me in respect of the slide in our industry's terms and conditions. I do not want the Managers to keep getting richer as we get poorer, even if the outcome isn't too dire for me personally bearing in mind my expectations.

I will jump at any opportunity to collectively give the company a bloody nose. I believe that the time has come to show them that we cannot be pushed around any more the way we have been since 911. I have given enough since then and it is time to start giving me something back for the sacrifices (against all the odds) I have made to help keep the company afloat for the past five years.

The company's on a huge winner already with BALPA's very reasonable compromise proposal, but still they want more. If we let them get away with it it'll probably be Bidline next (and I'm on Carmen right now but will still fight tooth and nail to protect Bidline).

I think we need to insist on an improvement to BARP too and even if everything else BALPA have proposed is accepted, I would still vote to strike if the BARPers aren't looked after.

Anything to let the company know that enough is enough.

Careful, BE.

The assumptions made in said letter are based upon pensionable pay frozen at RPI and your final pension having an LPI cap of 2.5%. Remember as pay rises generally tend to be more than RPI, the gap between your final salary and your pension will progressively increase. Once you retire, your pension will not have any protection should inflation be greater than 2.5%, which if history is anything to go by, it will be. If BA go for BALPA's 5% LPI and RPI+ pensionable pay rises, which BA can afford with the money that is now on the table, along with a review process and a decent percentage for BARP, a deal could be done.

Having said that, I agree entirely with the second part of your post.

HF

>>I will jump at any opportunity to collectively give the company a bloody nose.<<

Quite likely the reason the pilots at BA will come out on the short end.
Far too much emotion combined with too few applications of thought process.

A "that'll show 'em" attitude hardly ever works to satisfaction, in the long run.

BE - what does the great new pension under NAPS3 actually cost you? If I go at 60 I'll get 17% more pension than if I went at 55. However I will have to live at least 25 years in retirement before I recoup the pension money I've lost in the years between 55 and 60, and thats before I include the increased contribution costs I'll be paying for the rest of my career and factor in the future raids on the scheme BA will attempt. I'd rather have a lower pension and the health to enjoy it. A fat lot of good will be 17% more pension when I'm dribbling in a bath chair and don't know what my own name is.

411A, I'll encourage you with a response on this occasion as I probably worded it badly. I don't want to give anyone a 'bloody nose' really, but I do want to collectively send the message that "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH".

Hand Solo, We'll have to agree to disagree on that then. Even BALPA have agreed that the status quo is not defensible any more.

I would not have drawn my pension at 55 anyway as long as I was still working somewhere else.

Now I'm going to work longer for BA and get twice as much pension for doing so. That suits me, even though it may cost me hard cash in reality. My reality says that the pensions world has changed a lot and I needed to change with it. I am going to be immeasurably better off in my retirement than I expected to be six years ago... I don't expect to be getting 'double bubble' for the last ten years of my working life too.

For the avoidance of doubt though, I'm not defending BA's proposals at all - just saying that in my eyes it could have been worse.

I am fully behind BALPA's bottom line and completely trust Kevin Judkins and his CC colleagues to recommend the correct course of action, which will hopefully involve the company moving further in it's offer. If they don't and BALPA want my support, they shall receive it wholeheartedly. My 'build-it-yourself' brazier kit is almost finished and I have an arrangement to miss up to three months of mortgage payments in place.

:ugh: Beaver E,
Staff need to sit down with a pen and paper and work out how much these changes will cost.
.
It's a five prong attack, the company appears to be offering staff the option of pulling three prongs out, for ground staff that means pension payments going from 5.25 to 17.6% of pen pay.
.
However two prongs will reamain,
1/ Any pay rise above RPI will not be in the pen pot, and as sure as eggs is eggs, some clever pay deals will make pen pay fade away from basic pay, over time it will be horrible!
.
2/ Anytime in the future when it can be claimed people are living longer, the pension will get watered down again and again, also horrible!
.
I belive if the company was to offer staff the choice of no changes to NAPs and leave well alone, they would be asking ground staff to increase payments from 5.25% to about 25% or so, that is just about 5/FIVE/5 times what ground staff pay in now! Which is also about 20% of your basic pay, read it anyway you like, but this is a 20% pay cut. Flying staff get a bigger pay cut!
.
By thinking that working longer is ok or even better, just think about changes in 5 or 10 years from now, working till 70 or 75 will be great news!
.
Think of the managers pushing the above through, they will be getting 50% or more I would guess, sorry, did I forget to mention they getting pay rise!!!
.
All staff and unions need to stand strong on this one???

Beaver,

Management think theres a lot of ignorance amongst us all regarding the pensions, and quite frankly, I dont actually understand - no surprises there, and I havent really with everything else going on had the time to do the reading. However, Im with you just on the basis of the second part of your posting. Cyprus Airways guys took a 30% hit in salary of pilots - because if they didnt management said ' theyd close the company' .. meanwhile practically every ab initio employer - except us Ill admit - is now demanding people pay their own type ratings.... Hmm... Its not really about the numbers, is it? Any loss to our present Ts and Cs as they stand isn't something to wave away lightly.. Ive put holiday plans on hold and Im hanging on to my purse strings too... because Im going to support BALPA action along with you. x

Speaking to a lot of colleagues regarding the 'crucifix' issue, BA seemed to have a great deal of support from it's staff over the stand it took. The cave-in seems to be entirely a commercial decision based on the threats to BA business.

Is this a sign? If WW won't risk a loss of business to defend an important point like that, will he accept the loss of business that industrial action would cause?

My question is this: Has Willie Walsh just blinked?

oojamaflip,
Your comments are right, the company told the TV, Radio , Newspapers and staff that it was correct on this matter and would not be moved.
.
Instead of using a bit of common at the start of this show, they waited for it to build up and up until it was obvious to the yes managers in waterland that this will remove large amounts of cash from the business for a long time!
.
It would be nice to know the cost of this show, more like they will get the number crunchers who looked at the pensions figures to prove it injected cash into the business and the managers did a great job by all accounts?

Working on vs life-span
 

"Anyway, having joined BA at age 40, my final pension at 65 under either scheme looks like it's going to be more than double what it would have been at 55 and I'll still be working in a decent job for that extra ten years too."

I hope you have factored in the fact that you will undoubtedly have a shorter life-span if you work those extar 8-10 yrs?

And probably with a pension based on a L/H SFO's salary not a S/H Capt's?

Jeeez... Everyone's treating me like I'm some kind of management stooge! I'm gonna vote to strike if BALPA recommend it... Got it?

The above isn't an issue for me... Because I came to flying later in life (32 trial lesson, 34 first AFI job and 36 first airline job - 10 years ago) and without any previous profession or even thought for a pension until about 8 years ago, it was always my intention to carry on until 65 anyway whilst I continue to pay off the mortgage. The life-span issue is in-line with my expectation too.

It's about expectations and mine has always been to work until 65. I signed a BA 55 contract when CFE was 'integrated' knowing full well that there was every chance of it changing before I was forced out. I only had to wait 5½ years for the change to happen.

I expected 15/45ths at 55 now I will get 5/45ths plus 20/60ths at worst (NAPS IV 'till 65) of ten points further up the pay scale. I will pay a lot less for it (if I don't buy anything back) and end up with more when I retire. It exceeds my expectations of 10 years ago by quite a lot.

Admittedly this is a problem. But I'm prepared to take the risk. My seniority is 2440ish and I have 15 years left to get a command course back from somewhere before the 4 year freeze kicks in. Even if it has to be a shorthaul one (a killer at that age, no doubt) I would expect to manage it. I believe lots will take PTW and I had a 777 Capt on my JS from GLA this week who is adamant he is still going to go at 55 - he won't be alone with the current work levels. I also believe that the company is on the verge of massive profits and a LH fleet expansion will arrive sooner rather than later.

Anyway, that's something to fix in the future if necessary. My life sucks right now so I'm going to fix it as I have the opportunity. Then I can stop being so bitter, have a bit of a life and worry about the future (if I ever identify something to worry about) nearer the time.

Besides, if things get really desperate I have twice the minimum requirements for a DE 777 Command with Emirates. But thngs'd have to get a bit more desperate yet.

It might look like you will eventually retire on twice what was planned for 55, but I will guarantee that you will not.

For starters, that extra 10 years gives BA more time to come back for more. Secondly, the BA illustrator is a pile of garbage. I was disgusted by their initial proposal, and now I am totally sickened by the lies they are sending out to people about the pension they can expect. The break even point is fictitious and purely designed to make the employee think the damage is not all that bad. For my employer to try to pull the wool over my eyes so deviously is tantamount to theft in my mind. They are a bunch of con-men. Yes there is small print at the bottom of the illustrator, so perhaps they are safe legally. But they are liars all the same. They are hoping that most people will not understand the problem properly, and will not consult experts. Unfortunately, I'd say their hope is reality.

I think we are going to get screwed. We will not even get BALPA's current proposal, and then BA will be back to screw me over again before I retire.

Beaver eager,
How about /45ths till you 55yrs old, then if you want to work on, you can accept /60ths after that point, that seems fair.
.
I guess you signed up to do normal pilot hours when you joined, how do you think the company would act if you tell them you have changed your mind and now just wish to do 65% of normal hours on full hours pay?
.
These changes will just be the start, think on, 3 or 5yrs after some staff will have been pumping about 20% of their pay into NAPs, the black hole will open again and they will be back to make more company savings, an old saying comes to mind "never waste good money on bad money" however staff that have been pumping 20% of basic for the last 3 or 5yrs will be tricked again and will see 20% go to 27% or 32% I would guess???
.
The NAPs changes are simple.
1. Pay more in.
2. Pay in for more years.
3. Take less out.
4. Take out for less years.
.
It's a great deal for the company!!!;)

The break-even point would be a bit more accurate if you could actually leave at that point and claim the pension. Unfortunately, you can't as you will be penalised for every year you go before the NRA. For example, if your break-even pension point is at 56 with a projected pension of £50k, with a NRA of 60, you will lose 6% per year (24%) of that figure if you go at your break-even point, leaving you with around £38k.