Carnage Matey.. you know very well that an average of your expenses were incorporated into your "Basic Pay" a few years back.:=

Interestingly their share price has gone up from 330'ish to 550'ish in the same 12 months.

BARP
 

Understand what you folks are talking about, I only spent 7 years with the Corp. Lets just hope this doesn't lead to another Papa India type situ!!!!

As CM says, totally wrong, this is the final offer of several which contains some very cunning work by our reps. If the current BACC recommends acceptance, that's good enough for me.

I started this thread to help put pressure on BA in some small way. I've tried to keep it on page one all this time. Thanks to my BA colleagues on here for posting far more eloquently than me and all of you for contributing.

On final acceptance by the members (if that happens!) I may well delete the thread (if that option still exists!)

One sad thing for me, reading some of the vitriol that has been posted, it seems that there are many pilots who would denigrate BA and our T's & C's, but who would not hesitate to jump into our shoes given half the chance.

Well guys, you're welcome to apply through the normal channels, and if successful, join the bottom of our seniority list, enjoying the industry leading BARP deal which has been negotiated - despite the doomsayers!

And you know very well that it cerainly wasn't an 'average' of allowances, it was much less than that, and it wasn't pensionable when it went into the basic.

You are incorrect Carnage Matey, flight crew are not the only group of staff whose pensionable pay is 80% of basic pay. Youll find everyone else in NAPS has the same deal. I am in NAPS 1 and my pensionable pay is 80% of basic pay and Im an engineer.

Everone is not on the same deal.
14000 cabin crew are not on 80% pensionable pay. All their basic is pensionable, I believe.

I hadnt realised that cabin crew had a different deal to the rest of us. But in the defense of cabin crew, certainly post 97, new contract crew, the majority of their pay is duty pay; 100 percent of nine and half grand basic does not lead to the greatest pension in the world. Pre 97 crew have a much better deal but again the majority of their pay is variable non pensionable pay.

Paul W

I am with you and all the Nigel's here are trying to feel better about taking a bribe

Firstly the 80% of the Longhaul PP24 captains pay is practically 100% of a shorthaul captains basic, secondly when that goes to 95% the shorthaul captains will retire on more than they currently earn ( what a situation that is with a £2.1 Billion deficit to correct ), thirdly I presume BA will be getting rid of the abatement now then for all the members or giving me a 15% increase in my pensionable pay as well - yeah right.

This is what I don't understand.

Surely the abatement rate is now going to be completely unconnected with (1.5 X) SERPS for NAPS1 staff. It will, from now on, be a variable percentage depending on pay rises. Does this mean that NAPS1 and NAPS2 abatement rates are going to be set in stone at the present rate until the next pay deal that is above rpi?:confused:


BTW Congratulations to BALPA for securing another fabulous deal for pilots. I just wish my own union had the balls to do the same for us engineers.:D

CM, thanks for your reply......is the below about correct as an example.
.
............................................ground staff ....... flying staff
.
Pensionable pay now..................£40K.....................£40K.......... .......
.
Pensionable pay after changes.....£40K.....................£47.5K...............
.
I have played with these numbers for hours, but the results are always the same, appears as a general rule the flying staff seem to come out getting a 19% pay rise for pensionable purposes.
.
Please don't get me wrong, I think BALPA have done a super job for the flying staff, I just think it might be a little more fair if ground staff could be treated the same, I would guess if the company offered all staff the same deal, we could put all these pension problems behind us and get back to looking after the customers.!!!

TURIN,

No, No, NO! Abatement happens AFTER 'basic' pensionable pay has been worked out. The rules for NAPS 1 and NAPS 2 on abatement aren't being changed. So each year, your 'basic' pensionable pay will go up by the lower of RPI or your annual pay increase, and then will be reduced by the abatement amount - and the abatement amount depends on the level of state pension. This is true for ALL staff, not just flight crew or cabin crew. The only difference in the latest deal so far is that the 'basic' pensionable pay for flight crew will go up by about 18%.

If ground staff were facing a ten-year increase in their retirement age, then maybe BA would have offered transition arrangements to them as well. The new arrangements put everyone on the same footing, but that means that flight crew and cabin crew are facing a MUCH bigger change - hence the original transition arrangements, and the latest proposals to replace them with an increase in pensionable pay.

Even if the same deal had been offered to all staff, GMB might have found something to ballot on. Or am I just being cynical?

For those of you targeting the 95% pensionable pay for pilots, can we look at the whole package please? For instance, engineers and ground crew, feel free to tell us how much of your pension you are going to lose if you retire at your current NRA rather than your new one?

I can tell you that with my NRA changing to 65, the pension that I will accrue between now and 55 (my current NRA), will be 62% of what I would have accrued with my current NAPS pension. This is the same for every single pilot in BA. We do have the option to pay extras and hence get a bigger pension, and the option I plan to take, will actually leave me accruing 80% of my current pension from now on. (But I am having to increase my contributions to do this and I have not yet costed the true ratio between extra cost and extra benefit, so I might not opt for this plan after all).

Anyway, without paying extras, the financial hit will be just under £16k per year for me. If any of you want to knock that much off your pensions, and join me, please feel free to do so!

BALPA have done a good job and managed to make it so that the percentage loss to pilots is closer to other workgroups. It does not matter what they have had to tweak to acheive this, you should not be comparing little bits and pieces. What matters is the final percentage loss, and I guarantee that you are not taking the kind of hit that many pilots are taking.

Please feel free to correct me if your pension losses are higher, but I doubt you will.

GS-Alpha.

Rimmer

The pensionable pay figure is for calculating contributions from the employee into the fund and the figure used when calculating the pension. e.g Accrual rate of 1/52 for each year of service, say 35 years then the pension is 35/52 x 95% (LH PP24 - abatement). Plainly no pilots will retire on this basis on a figure greater than they were earning.

The abatement is applied to all NAPS pensions. The idea of reducing the pensionable pay is that this portion of pay is already pensioned through the Basic State Pension. So there is no need for the employee nor British Airways to pay pension contributions on this portion of pay.

People are focusing on the pensionable pay percentage as if the figure given for pensionable pay is what you actually retire on! It is not. It is the amount used in ALL calculations. As explained above the figure is used to calculate the retirement pension payable and also, and this is being missed, for calculating contributions. The accrual rates are being lowered and the % needing to be paid is going up.

For goodness sake, the whole exercise was an exercise in damage limitation, nobody is going to be better off on the basis of these changes. Younger pilots will have to work 10 years longer for what they would have earned pensionwise at age 55 before. Older pilots will be less affected.

The GMB and BASSA in particular are spinning this as if the pilots have walked off with a pot of gold at all other employees expense. That is not the case. If the GMB and BASSA believe that rejecting the proposal and threatening to strike will magic more money from the company well dream on. It is entirely possible that the Trustees and the pension regulator will impose a solution should acceptance be rejected. Then it will be seen how this proposal was clearly the best negotiated settlement available.

BASSA in particular are leading their members in collective suicide. The pitiful understanding of the facts of life over the pension alone, not helped by reams of half-truths and spin, is laughable if it wasn't going to lead to such disastrous consequences for their members.

GS Alpha

Quote "feel free to tell us how much of your pension you are going to lose if you retire at your current NRA rather than your new one?"


What your forgetting here is NAPs at present is very biased in your favour ( and could be said that fact alone means you have caused a far bigger part of the £2.1 Billion than I ), your saying that any future change has to take that into account, I say things are biased unfairly now and BAs original proposals were fairer than what's currently proposed.

Quote "BALPA have done a good job and managed to make it so that the percentage loss to pilots is closer to other workgroups."

Yes they have and therefore meaning I and the check in girls on 12K will have to effectively subsidise your pension by the continued bias.

M.Mouse

Your correct naturally as I forgot its 2/3 of the figure but the point I was making is at present the shorthaul Captains pensionable pay is NOT 80% of HIS salary its nearly 100% which is a far higher percentage currently than mine.

Abatement yes - 22% of basic pay reduced for my pension and I estimate 4-5% of yours.

Nobody is going to be better off I think all the staff knew that, they also suspected BA would try a sweetener to a certain group, they also knew who takes more from the scheme as a percentage relative to payments in caused by increments and promotions - they basically knew it was a biased scheme but happy so long as BA FUNDED IT!

Quote"The GMB and BASSA in particular are spinning this as if the pilots have walked off with a pot of gold at all other employees expense."

Well not exactly a pot of gold but otherwise correct!

Quote " It is entirely possible that the Trustees and the pension regulator will impose a solution should acceptance be rejected. Then it will be seen how this proposal was clearly the best negotiated settlement available."

Not really - the regulator will act based on available information and instruct the trustees to amend the scheme to remove the deficit considering equally the effect on employees collectively - i may well benifit from as things are now based on the information he and the trustees now have.

Quote "BASSA in particular are leading their members in collective suicide. The pitiful understanding of the facts of life over the pension alone, not helped by reams of half-truths and spin, is laughable if it wasn't going to lead to such disastrous consequences for their members."

Such as ? when you look at what a typical member will loose in retirement a few months out will be chicken feed, besides when your paid 12K a year if the company folds there's always McDonalds.

You could say that, but you'd be wrong. The pilots take out the same proportion of the fund as they put in. Don't take my word for it, ask the trustees. You could equally say that ground based staff are responsible for the size of the deficit as their total share of the deficit is greater than that of the flying staff. It would be an equally nonsensical and irrelevant statement. People are due what it says on their contracts. Thats what BA agreed to pay. This is an exercise in clearing the deficit, not redistributing wealth.
Again, this is an exercise in clearing the deficit, not redistributing wealth. On what fair basis should BA rob from one group to pay for another? Would you like it if the pilots pay package was funded from your salary? I doubt it. So why should the pilots pensions fund yours? There's no point claiming NAPS is biased towards pilots. BA agreed to pay it and thats all that matters. We also pay higher contributions than you and BA pay higher multiples of our contributions than they do for you. Its all part of the fact we get better remuneration and whether your like it or think its fair is, I'm afraid, irrelevant.
Can you justify that claim, rather than making vague allegations of 'bias'?
Once again, ask the trustees if the pilots take more as a percentage from the scheme than they put instead of listening to your friendly neighbourhood manager (and we know which of your managers was spreading that rumour). The truth will disappoint you.
Not really indeed. So long as the trustees are satisfied with the proposals they can implement them without the regulator getting involved. The trustees primary concerns are the protection of the accrued benefits and clearing the deficit. Fairness is not their issue or they might well have rejected the plan to raise NRAs by different amounts. Your faith in the power, and even the desire of the regulator to intervene is misplaced.
Such as their recent claims that the other unions conspoired to hold the pensions meetings when BASSA couldn't make it it order to stitch them up. Naturally they claim BALPA orchestrated this and have launched a rather nasty character assasination attempt against the first BALPA rep who dared to counter their claims

Rimmer

Fortunately, Carnage Matey has saved me a load of typing.

I'd just like to echo that if you want the facts about how biased NAPS is or is not, ask the trustees. I know this is the rumour encouraged by BA, because everyone in BA seems to LOVE to HATE a PILOT. Give them a spark and they will light a fire to burn all pilots. Why are we so hated - jealousy. The thing I cannot understand though, is if you are so jealous, become a pilot!

Guys

The green eyed monster is still being fed!!!!!!!

GS...you are sooooright....for those envious enough...get yourself trained and join us.

GS Alpha
I didn't expect you to agree, however a few things to consider, naturally the ground staff are responsible for a larger part of the deficit as by a percentage they are a far bigger group.
Pension like staff travel is non contractual.


Quote "The pilots take out the same proportion of the fund as they put in" >>> Rubbish, this was a post on the engineers forum a while back and i think it sums things up fairly well, to retire 5 years earlier without anything else means you get 5 years of a pension the ground staff don't get, please don't tell me 1 - 1/4 % of your salary covers that

>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a dig at flight crew by the way just a comparison of the inequalities of the NAPs Pension
- if you further want to presume most of the Captains spend 1/2 their careers as first officers ( and I have corrected my figures as
I have received a PM confirming the shorthaul Captains pay scale goes up to 100K with 85K pensionable average )
the figures actually look like this
*********************************
These are the assumptions and I think they are realistic.
BA Technician Basic earnings ( 2004 ) £27000 -- Retirement age 60, started pension at 18, pays 5.25% contribution.
BA Shorthaul Captain earnings ( 2004 ) £85000 -- Retirement age 55, started pension at 18, pays 6.5% contribution.
Average age of death now is 80 by official figures.
Here is the basic premise.
Technician
Pays £1123PA for 42 years or £47178 ( £27000 - £6000 X 5.25% X 42 )
Receives £14000PA for 20 years or £280000 ( £27000 - £6000 abatement X 2/3 )
****** SO THE BA TECHNICIAN RECEIVES 5.93 TIMES WHAT HE / SHE PAYS IN ********
Captain
Pays £2535PA for 17 years or £43095 ( £45000 - £6000 X 6.5% X 17 )
+ £5135PA for 20 years or £102700 ( £85000 - £6000 X 6.5% X 20 ) = £145795
Receives £52666 for 25 years or £1315350 ( £85000 - £6000 abatement X 2/3 )
****** SO THE BA CAPTAIN RECEIVES 9.021 TIMES WHAT HE / SHE PAYS IN ********
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>

While I don't knock what groups get as rewards I know the shorthaul captains pensionable pay is currently about 100K ( Longhauls Captains pay x 80% - 6K abatement ) and life expectancy now 84, I would hazard to say long term flight crew are taking almost double ( as a percentage to payments ) from the scheme that mere mortals do!


Its very generalised but overall correct, i had no problem with that as such until BA came asking me for money to support a fund that failing

Quote "This is an exercise in clearing the deficit, not redistributing wealth." >>> very true but it must be on the basis of those that caused more clear more


Quote "So why should the pilots pensions fund yours? " >>> nobody wants it too, we just want you to start funding it rather than effectively letting others, the only way that would be fair is to correct the fund so its the same for everyone ( without giving one group a bribe to keep them special ).


Quote "BA pay higher multiples of our contributions than they do for you, Its all part of the fact we get better remuneration and whether your like it or think its fair is, I'm afraid, irrelevant." >>> well its irrelevant until i am asked to start funding it, so why is BAs deficit so large compared to other companies?, could part of the problem be it pays out more for certain groups than outer funds - proportionally?
I want to stress that i don't hate the pilots, i do believe you get a better deal from NAPs than the ground staff and the FUND pays for that ( and so the deficit ), i do believe that raising the pensionable pay to 95% of a longhaul captains PP24 pay constitutes a bribe for you and Balpa to accept it and is unwarranted and immoral.

here is a copy of the letter GMB members have received >>>


You may have heard that the BA Forum, which includes the GMB, is recommending the latest proposals concerning the NAPS pensions scheme.
However, the GMB is not recommending these proposals and has never done so.
In fact, we are recommending that you reject the proposals, for the following reasons:
1) If you are in NAPS you will have to double your pensions contributions just to retain some of your current pension package. For the vast majority, this will be unaffordable.
2) We think that the proposals unfairly favour certain groups, in particular the pilots.
3) We believe that BA is in a position to pay more. The value of the company has doubled since the start of the pensions debate.
4) The proposed changes would be set in stone. There is no commitment for a review, should the situation improve,
5) Other than for the pilots, there are no improvements in BA's final offer for staff who are in the BARP scheme. This remains a very poor scheme.
6) We have had no assurances from BA that our members in APS will continue to have their pay rises fully pensionable.
However, as always, the final decision will be made by you, the members.
We will shortly be giving you the opportunity to tell us whether or not to accept the proposals.
This consultation will take the form, in the first instance, of an internal ballot, run by the GMB.
You will be provided with full details of the proposals and (provided we can get BA to cooperate) you will be able to question your negotiators and state your views in meetings of our members.
In order to gauge how strongly you feel, you will also be asked whether you would be prepared to take industrial action, should BA decide to impose these changes.
However, we can re-assure you that such a drastic course of action would only be undertaken if all alternatives had been exhausted and only after a further balloting process had been completed."


I think you will find a "Large " Majority of ground staff support that view, its the first time in my 22 years at BA i have felt the urge to strike ( i am not in the GMB ) and sadly the first time i have felt bad feeling towards the pilot community at BA.

According to Radio 5 Live... Cabin Crew have voted by 96% for strike action.

That 96% is of those that voted. As a proportion of all CC it's 74%

Rimmer - I don't really care two hoots what flawed analysis somebody posts on an engineering forum. It is incorrect. End of story. I don't know who wrote your analysis but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a trustee. Once again, if you want to know if we put in less and take out more, the only people who can tell you this are the trustees, and they say no. Not an anonymous contributor to a forum. Not your mate in the canteen doing some 'back of a fag packet' sums. Only the trustees. They say we don't.
Now I shouldn't even respond to the rather simplistic analysis you have copied over here but just as one example of its errors, it seems to have overlookd the fact that BA pay approx 3.8 times a pilots contribution into the fund compare to approx 2.5 times a ground staff member. What effect does that have compounded over 30 years? Would you be happier if BA paid us that cash directly into our pay packets and we then put that directly into our pension funds?
Once again, the cornerstone of your whole argument is false. Ask the trustees.
We already fund it sufficiently to meet our requirements. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, ask the trustees. You want the fund corrected so it is the same for everyone, yet you also want me to work 10 years longer when you only have to work five, meaning that I, and all my aircrew colleagues, have to give up 10 years of pensions payments compared to your five to meet the deficit. Where's the fairness in that? I hate to state the obvious but we are special. We are being asked to work twice the extra time as you. Thats 5 pretty special years to me!
Well its nice of you to say it but it doesn't alter the fact that you argument is fundamentally unsound. The money to pay for rasing the pensionable pay has come from the transitional arrangements BA themselves suggested. They offered it in one form, we asked for it to be presented in another form which better suited us, BA agreed. Where's the immorality in that? Similar arragements are available for the cabin crew should they want them. Given that this is a deficit clearing exercise do you think BA would agree to BALPAs requests if it added to the burden on the fund?
It is a shame that you feel bad feeling towards the pilots now, moreso because it is not based on correct information but the propaganda the GMB has been publishing as part of its grandstanding exercise. From the outset that particular union has been aiming to rob Peter to pay Paul with initiatives like capping maximum pensions. I'm sure they are dissappointed they haven't achieved their wealth redistribution aims and I've no doubt that they will continue to stir up resentment against the pilots, who went to this negotiation in search of a fair solution. Fortunately I and most of my colleagues have broad shoulders. We are used to being disliked by other employees who have no interest in the truth (you should check out the BASSA website one day), it's just another day for us.

From their website:

"British Airways has received confirmation that a strike ballot by the Transport and General Workers Union's cabin crew branch has produced a vote in favour of strike action.

While this is a disappointing result, this does not mean that a strike is inevitable.

We have arranged to meet T&G officials this week and we very much hope they will enter into meaningful discussion with us on the issues the union has raised.

Importantly, in the event that a strike did take place, we want to minimise any disruption to our customers. The leaders of the T&G cabin crew branch have created a worrying time for our customers and our staff. We hope the T&G grasps the opportunity to put aside threats of disruption and resolve their concerns through negotiation.

No dates have been set for potential action and all our flights continue to operate normally."

Carnage

Ok i can go with what your saying but really your just re-enforcing my overall view and that of the ground staff, if BA can pay in more for you then maybe it should now for us rather than you and maybe it should have all along.

Would i be happy for BA to have paid you it in your hand and you did it - sure ......................would have looked a bit different come bench marking etc but would have been more open and fair now, the overall call here baiting or not is Via BA or whatever you do better out of NAPs proportionally ( and you have just said it ) , i don't see that as fair to continue.

I only have my view but don't knock the small guys when they have to take a stance eventually.

Quote " yet you also want me to work 10 years longer when you only have to work five "

>>> So you think its fair and just that you retire 5 years earlier because "YOUR A PILOT ", i don't want you to have to work more than i will have to, actually looking at working conditions and the effects on health Engineers should retire at 55 and Pilots at 60 but wont go there.

Quote "I hate to state the obvious but we are special"


>>> Ok right as if i didn't sense that coming

Quote "We are being asked to work twice the extra time as you. That's 5 pretty special years to me!"

>>> No your not you were just being asked to pay a lot more for the difference and that's the crux of it!

Quote " The money to pay for raising the pensionable pay has come from the transitional arrangements BA themselves suggested."

>>> So if BA raise your pensionable pay the pension you receive comes from a different NAPs to mine - glad we cleared that one up, I can see why BA suggested it.

Quote " Given that this is a deficit clearing exercise do you think BA would agree to BALPAs requests if it added to the burden on the fund?"


>>> Sure they would for 3500 guys, its just a case of tweaking things for the other 29000 ask the GMB, raising any groups pensionable pay leads to a higher pension and more for NAPs to fund - How can that be any different - Its immoral especially at this time..

Quote "to rob Peter to pay Paul "

>>> So why didn't they just take your NRA to 60 and mine to 65 and work out correct Accruals for it?, while that might not still be fair it would have been accepted, i think with what they have done now and typically BA tried to hide it there's a chance a standoff might take the company to the wall - we will see how special we all are then !

You must agree that the lower paid members of BA have little to loose and all to gain, a typical baggage handlers or Engineering Maintenance Workers pension is in the region of £6500 in payment, you ask me to feel sorry when its suggested you work 5 years more or BA Lifts your pensionable pay £21000 PA, you are special but there are degrees and your not that special.

PS i tried the Bassa site but i couldn't access much and therefore cant comment

But you just did, and the above just about sums your position up. Your posts drip with bitterness and envy.

Not only that, your solutions all revolve around taking from the pilots, rather than negotiating a better deal with BA.

Rather than bleating on here, go and bleat to your union to negotiate a better deal. However it is no doubt much easier for you to vent your jealousy and bile here.

I think you would have made an excellent CSD.

BA pilots age
 

I understand that prior to Oct 1st, F/O can fly till 65, has BA changed the rules for Captains since November 23,2006 ?? And can anyone provide an update to the age for Lufthansa pilots ...it is my understanding that 3 of their pilots filed an age discrimination complaint against the airline and over here in Canada there is not much news on this...would appreciate some info. Rick

maybe not - but the perception is that this is the case.

The Company and BALPA are the only two interested parties who think this is a good deal - given that it is understandable there will be suspicion about it from other employee groups.

rick3333331

Prior to Oct 2006 all BA pilots had a compulsory retirement age of 55. AFter that date due to EU legislation it changed and is now 65 (or shortly will be).

Jet II

Perception is indeed so important. It is not actually a good deal but the least worst deal that, we are led to believe, we could expect to achieve.

It is plain from many postings here that the whole complicated issue is not very well understood by many people. Frankly, the GMB and BASSA in particular are doing nothing to help their members fully understand.

Perhaps their leaders do not understand either.

L337
Well as for Envy, do i envy your terms and conditions? - bloody right but i also know how life is, likewise i wouldn't mind the terms and conditions of a CSD!
My comments here are really a correction to the statements from the pilots, you say you are special and deserve to retire early - that's fine, you deserve a special arrangement on how NAPs will continue from now on - that's fine.
But then when the cabin crew or GMB say they want a special arrangement because they are special people and deserve it all the relies are negative.
I have no comment about what you get as remuneration ( pay ) but BAs FTSE 100 pension deficit is huge ( members wise ) compared to other FTSE companies, my pension is no better than my brothers in BT, actually its worse and we are paid similar - NAPs is a biased scheme accept it, don't expect staff on 12K a year to help fund it, maybe my pensionable pay should be set at 95% of the highest paid person in engineering to compensate and we can call that fair!
So the comment about retiring early probably shouldn't have been made ( re - who goes when ) i know my failings!
What has really got people myself included worked up is the fact that BA looks to most employees to be doing a private deal when saying its the same for all - , that's fine, however should you find yourself out of work because the other groups want to quote "negotiate a better deal" you had best save your "why i am so special " stories for Mr O/Leary.

M Mouse

You would be surprised at what many do know, they know for starters abatement effects poorer earners far more than larger earners, we in engineering accept what has been said about BA paying in more for yourselves, however with any FSS anyone who gets 24 incruments pays in less as a percentage over their career than someone who gets 2, its not really about what you get its what you pay in for it thats seen as wrong and BA ways of hiding truths.

Perhaps BA could have paid you all more salary all along too. The difference is they didn't want or feel forced too. BA will continue paying greater multiples for flight crew as thats the contract. The free market at work.
Yes, because we, and BA, pay more in. We don't do better out of it by taking from anyone else. We pay more in, we get more out. Simple. Lots of people in BA pay extra cash to improve their accrual rate. Perhaps you do too. By your logic you would be doing proportionally better out of NAPS than somone who only pays the minimum contributions. Perhaps you should be made to pay more towards the deficit to fund them?
No I think its fair because 55 is whats in my contract, and the contract of most cabin crew. Would you consider it fair if every other group in the company was required to work to 65 but engineers were made to work to 70?Of course you wouldn't. "Why should I have to shoulder a greater part of the pension burden?" You would say. "Because you earn more than us and take more out of NAPS" the check-in staff would respond. Does that scenario sound strangely familiar to you?
Oh well thats OK then. The fact that I'd have to put nearly 25% of my salary into the fund in order to get anything like the pension I'm currently due is fine cos I'm not actually required to work longer. Nopes, I could choose to be unable to meet my financial commitments for 20 years or I could take a huge cut in my pension instead.:ugh:
No it comes from the same NAPS that I'll have to pay greater contributions to than you for the rest of my career: 8.25% as opposed to your 5.25% in order to keep the increase in my retirement age to 5 years. It also comes from the huge sums of money I'm feeding into NAPS by not drawing a pension from age 55 to 60 whilst continuing to pay in that 8.25%.
Of course its that easy. We just say "we are special" and BA roll over. Do me a favour! All this talk of immorality is starting to sound a GMB/Communist party communique. The GMB saw nothing immoral in slashing my pension to pay for their members.
I'd have gladly seen BA do that, as would most BALPA members. Unfortunately a certain couple of unions well known for wildcat striking insisted we are all treated the same with the same NRA. You can't have your cake and eat. You sowed the seed and other assorted cliches.......
I never asked you to feel sorry, I don't need your pity. I simply take issue with the endless stream of ill-informed anti-pilot rhetoric that gets churned onto Pprune. The flying crew in BA were getting the !!!!!ty end of the pension deal from day one, gleefully welcomed by Ed Blissett and his cohorts. Through hard work we have gotten BA to pay more - to everybody - and reduced the pain burden for flying crew down to a level comparable with those on the ground. If that doesn't meet your approval then why don't you ask GMB why their only plan to reduce the deficit involved stealing the cash from the pilots.
I very much doubt that the lower paid staff in BA will drive the company to the wall. You may think they don't have much to lose with a £6500 pension, but they aren't going to get that anywhere else, and how much are Globeground, Servisair or Aviance paying for the same job?

Well, it took a couple of years, but divide and rule appears to have infiltrated not only APS/NAPS/new joiners but also aircrew vs groundcrew/engineers. 'Don't want your sympathy'. You probably won't get it. Or support, for that matter. I was flushed out of the pool (ex-mil pilot) following Sep 11 and looking at it now, I'm glad. LHR, traffic and taxes, yours to keep.

Pilots are about as 'special' as any other cog in the wheel that flies aircraft from A to B. More skilled than other cogs, therefore more money, yes. 'Special'. Well that's open to interpretation.

Benefits of a strike........?
 

Erm yes well .....ahem err .....well of course .....naturally erm err aah....
.....we will reduce our carbon footprint!...:ok:

Carnage

Naturally we wont agree on this but i do want you to see why other groups will be and are very unhappy.

I personally had several issues with the pension, capping the pension in payment was one that was unacceptable and the RPI restriction another, the RPI is especially a problem as it reduces the pension you will get on money you have already banked, who knows exactly where that will end up but i have 20 years to go and if 84 for life expectancy is right it will lose me estimated 10% of my pension ( or at least £50000 ) as it reduces my pensionable pay by 15%, had i been a pilot in NAPs i wouldn't now have to worry about what i have already banked would i?

Had BA left things as they were as 60 and 65 NRD the GMB would have a problem but not like it does now.

Quote "It also comes from the huge sums of money I'm feeding into NAPS by not drawing a pension from age 55 to 60 whilst continuing to pay in that 8.25%."

Not sure where your getting that from as we all have to pay 8.25% now, besides i thought the whole point of pushing back the retirement age was to fund the deficit not one groups pensionable pay costs?

I can see a lot of pain over this, BA are making out we are all on the same deal and its blatantly not true, most would have accepted it if they had just left it at 60/65 as opposed 55/60, at least you knew who was getting what then.

Rimmer, you seem to think that our past accrued pensionable pay is going up to 95%. It is not, it remains at it's current 80%.
We have exactly the same worries as you here.
BALPA believe that we will see very few above RPI payrises from now on, and therefore it will not be a worry. They did not see the point in distributing money to acheive a greater than RPI Cap, when we might never see such a payrise. I tend to agree. If more money was available, perhaps that goal could have been achieved too, but the money just is not there.

Rimmer, everything that is 'already banked' remains as it is now and will be paid out as promised using the existing LPI cap of 5% for pension in payment (which isn't changing under the new scheme anyway).

It is only for future accrual that the cap on any increase in pensionable pay is reducing to RPI. I'm not thrilled at that, but apparently it is an important part of how to reduce how the deficit looks on paper. On the other hand, how many pay rises do we ever get in excess of RPI anyway?

Edit: It seems even I got my wires crossed a bit, so no wonder many of our non-BALPA colleagues who are less informed by their unions about what the new plans actually involve are not too sure. Thanks for putting me right GS Alpha.

Beaver Eager, I believe Rimmer was refering to the fact that pensionable pay is capped to RPI for both past and future accrual. For pilots, the past accrual pensionable pay remains at 80% and the future accrual is to become 95%, of the pay points on April 1st 2007. After that, the percentages mean diddly squat. The pensionable pay will increase with pay rises, but will be capped at RPI for all.
The 2.5% and 5% LPI caps you refer to determine what will happen to your pension year on year after retirement. However, the 2.5% you talk about was simply a proposal. BALPA managed to get rid of this for ALL. The LPI cap remains unchanged at 5% for both past and future accrual.
GS-Alpha

GS

Apologies offered and deserved - engaged brain before facts known.

GS

One question for you all though as you seem on the ball, the GMB made comment about reviews of NAPs if in credit and RPI for APS, they seem to think the answer from BA is no comment, is that correct?