I don't believe it matters a jot whether there is seniority or not. Pure supply and demand are the only things affecting our industry's T&Cs now. Thatcher's market economy still rules, I guess.

When there is a shortage of pilots, things will improve.

There has been a glut of pilots since about 1992; things were just about to get better when 911 happened :mad: , but it can't be far away now. :ok:

Whether it will last long enough for us to claw back the terrible losses of the last 15 years or so, whilst the employers had it almost all their own way, who knows?

DarkStar,
I'm a bit confused about your posting ref the Canadian slip and the 'general feeling' that 'we' won't strike.
If on a night stop I were to ask my fellow pilot what he / she thinks I would not represent it as 'the general view' - just 'a' view to add to the many other unmemorable nightstops I have done since this question arose.
How many pilots were included in this mini survey?
Who exactly is included in your 'we' ? Pilots / cabin crew / both ?
Which are you ?
Just wondering.

I certainly won't be striking!! For two reasons, one: I can't afford to be without pay for than a couple of days.... two: I have no interest in the NAPS pension as I am a BARP member and the extra couple of percent that BA may end up contributing after a strike will not make a big difference to me, so why take the risk.

AH,

Fair enough, I suppose. However, if BA introduce a Career Average scheme in place of NAPS, as surely as night follows day they will flatten the pay scales out for everyone. If you think BARPS is cr@p now, just you wait. :eek:

On the BBC this evening. So it will already be on the public Agenda. The question is - where will their sympathies lie?

Leander - of course I can only speak for the few (about 10 or so) fellow FC whilst the thread has been on Pprune, and yes, I've spoken to CC and LHR groundstaff - all in NAPS :( . I suppose I feel trapped between a rock and hard place over this situation. I do believe that there will be a lot of posturing before an agreement finally comes into place, just in the nick of time, but at who's cost?

I don't believe the general public understand what's at stake for many of us and yes one day soon the demand for FC will increase mainly by increasing numbers of Lo-Co's but the final salary schemes of yesteryear are just that - gone so any new pilots who join these start-ups are going to face poor pensions as well as poorer T & C's.

Difficult times ahead...:ugh:

DarkStar

As a member of the BA-flying general public whose T&Cs (especially wrt pensions) are subject to very similar adjustment, no, we don't understand!! Empathise maybe; but if the working populace followed some of the proposals on this thread, the entire country would be on strike. And as for the civil servants! :{

We are all faced with the same impending changes in lifestyle brought about by new global demographic/economic conditions. In this climate, striking to ensure the best possible T&Cs is ultimately harmful to everyone, whatever your occupation - there are more subtle ways of easing the pain. But pain there will be, and some will suffer more than others. The general public will probably regard BA FC as others.

The general public are entitled and welcome to any view they may chose.
Whether you fly Virgin / BM every day, or just on the day of a pre-warned official BALPA / BA strike, is entirely your perogative - it has nothing to do with my resistance to BA's intended changes to my contract.
Sympathy / empathy much appreciated but not requested or required.

Jindabyne - Its easy really. The company have a debt and in order to pay it off they want to take it from the staff. Why should we just accept that?

OK, pensions are a problem and something needs to be done. That is true of other groups of staff in other industries too. But what should we do? Let Rentokil set the standard and just take stuff away from staff, or follow the likes of other businesses who have out a one off chunk of cash into the pension, to pay off a debt they owe as a company?

If BA were to give a sensible solution to the given problem, no need to strike or put any pressure on to change things. If BA want to take the cash from us, that's a big problem and we should do something about it.

Most other people in the country (Rentokil and Co-op aside) don't stand to lose 40% of their pension.

Interestigly, BA would have made a 13% margin last year were it not for the increased price of oil. We have lower staff costs that some of our major competitiors (including Lufthansa) and are a productive workforce. Why should we have the bill presented to us?

Good luck to you all, and I hope that your management will respond favourably to your arguments. I'll hopefully be travelling with you again in February, paid for from my meagre RAF pension (not a gripe). But, if you strike, and regardless of your pension plight, the majority of your customers will, IMHO, be less than sympathetic. But then, if you're of leander's and BigBrutha's mind, you won't give a damn.

Now imagine how they would react if the board decided to do the same thing to the upper management...how would the politicians react if Gordon Brown decided that their final salary pensions were no longer affordable and they were all to unilaterally lose 40% of their pensions....I know 'as if'...but you see my point.

Why is it that the globalisation means that workers must be lowest common denominator T&Cs wise while management reward themselves obscenely...I think we (world wide non management) are being had.

It's not that we don't give a damn jindabyne, but why should we take all the blame? The management have every chance to not let it get anywhere near that far.

Our leaders & senior managers are, IMO, trying to get richer on the backs of our pension. That displeases me to the point of being prepared to fight back.

I have no wish to inconvenience anyone (except BA management), but what other course of action do we have? And yes, if push comes to shove, I too don't give a damn about what anyone else thinks, especially the Nigel 'knockers' on here... I am trying to protect what was promised to me when I joined, nothing more, nothing less.

Why is pension debt less important than any other debt? Because it's easier to renege on maybe?

And as for the green-eyed monsters out there... For the non-pilots, I'm not really interested in their opinion, if you want my T&Cs then go and train as a pilot. As for other pilots, well I just don't understand where you get off! All pilots should be wanting our profession's T&Cs to be as good as possible... Understand the 'ratchet' effect; for years now we have been ratcheted down by self sponsored type rating candidates (I don't blame them, I'd have done the same if I'd had to), a situation created because the Airlines had a surplus of pilots.

Wouldn't it be good if we started ratcheting up our T&Cs? Well, it starts with those at the top stopping the rot IMO, and this is as rotten as it gets! :mad:

I think you'll find we all "give a damn". It will be unpleasant to see passengers stranded (again!) and something I'd prefer to avoid. However, if my choice is between accepting what amounts to legalised theft from BA whilst getting a nice warm feeling as I walk through the terminal or having to work for the next x years knowing that I've well and truly shafted myself to the benefit of the shareholders and the management's bonuses, I'm afraid it's no contest.

Nobody actually wants a strike and it's far from a foregone conclusion but the decision will ultimately be made by the BA board.

Today, three directors including WW dumped £270k worth of shares between them so it looks like they realise we're serious.

Unfortunately, it looks like they're serious too!

jyndabine & all other complainants,
We do give a damn - a promise is a promise . Doesn't matter whether it is in relation to a service for a price, or a price for a service.
I'm sure that you would withhold your custom if BA failed on the former - you will be given fair warning if BALPA ballot to withhold service should BA fail on the latter.
Sorry if your T & C's have dwindled. Doesn't mean mine should.

It's a worrying to see a willingness to let the company go down as a result of possible pension dispute. If it gets to that point, we'll all get the smaller half of bugger all - including existing pensioners. That'll be a rather hollow "victory".

I empathise with the sentiments though. BA does seem to like to chisel down the T&Cs of its professional staff (both ground and flying), relying on us to "do the decent thing" while pretty well capitulating to the demands of the industrial grades.

leander

Firsty, I'm not complaining, simply putting my view.

Your last sentence has a whiff of arrogance, and only reinforces my own perception that joe-public will be highly critical of any strike action (not that some others regard that as having any relevance - but, unlike the London underground point made earlier, air travellers do have other carrier options). Most of the employed UK workforce is subject to pension reduction, but arguably the majority will be relatively much worse off than BA FC: and therein lies your arrogance. I wish you well in achieving an equitable outcome, but I would hope that in the long run things can be turned more to your advantage by adopting methods other that of strike action. Look at one of our major aerospace companies as an example.

No arrogance intended so I apologise if it is perceived as such.

Thanks for the sentiment ref 'equitable outcome' , I hope there is no need for IA, but should it happen I hope you will be able to plan accordingly and not be unduly inconvenienced.

Why does nobody mention the government's significant part in precipitating the current 'pensions crisis'?

WW has come in to BA waving a baseball bat bringing his 'hardman' image with him from Aer Lingus.

He has come to a profit making company whose employee's have already given much and still realise we will have to give more.It is the manner in which he treats people and has no interest in the pensions of his workforce that has pi**ed off pilots and the rest of us.I do NOT want a strike as the BA passengers have put up with so much crap.Do not just worry about the pilots and BALPA as at the moment all the Unions at BA are in talks to form one 'super' Union to challenge Willie 'Adolf ' Walsh.

He does not give a !!!!! about the workforce only the city and the shareholders,helping the rich get richer.....not off the backs of myself,my family and the BA workforce.

You had a fight Walsh with a government subsidised airline and you won.This time you'll have a real fight you will find harder.The reason is,we the employee's who have been here for year's to make it a success, and we don't need you to come in and shatter morale and ruin it all.

At the end of the day WW will be here for 3/4 years screw the workers and PI** off back to the Emerald Isle via Nassau with £3-4 million in bonus payments and NO pension worry.

Do us all a favour and go.

WTDWL.

Jinbabyne - Its not that we want to strike. Its not that we won't exhaust other options first (like what is going on now). What is happening here, is we (at least some of us) are saying that we will strike if the other options have run out and the deal is a bad one. What other choice do we have?

I am very much against strikes in most cases (look at previous threads I have contributed to). I am against London underground striking every year in order to screw more money out of the travelling public and against the wildcat stuff that we have seen before.

I am however, not against striking if 40% of my pension is stolen by a management who can create other ways of solving the problem. If that inconveniences the public, it is a real shame, but as I said above, when other things have been exhausted, what can we do?

I put in a lot of effort for the people who pay my wages - way beyond what my contract states. I don't "work to rule", nor do I want to. Sometimes though, things get so serious that you have to send a serious message. Pensions are too important a thing to just let them be taken.

Mr Brown has imposed huge taxes on our pension funds but we have just layed back and accepted this shafting while parliamententary MP's have taken bigger and bigger cuts from our taxes to fund their enhanced pensions. Then they say we will give you an insurance life line and tax our pensions again. I just wish people in the UK would realise what this govenment is doing to us.

whattimedoweland :

To hammer the Unions at BA with his baseball bat! The reason the BA Board gave him the job, and not to some affable well connected city slicker.

The rest of your post sounds as if you have already admitted defeat. "Super Union" at BA? You kidding me? You'll have enough trouble uniting the Pilots seniority list, never mind getting Cleaners, caterers, drivers, part time cabin crew etc etc to align with "fat cat" 747 skippers!!! WW will massacre you.

True but not given to him, he'll want to see you all down to the same cost base as Emirates crews at least, then give the BALPA Rep a kick up the arse as he leaves the negotiating room with no bus fare home.

Jeezzz this is really getting sad.

He's just doing the job he was brought into BA for!! And for what he gets paid for just like YOU!

Correct. He was a Cadet Pilot, Line Pilot, then Union Rep, then spent the rest of the his time in EI trying to shaft the Unions, Pilots, and "Buddies". But then again that was his job at the time!!!

Wrong. EI is no more subsidised/protected than BA is. That is against EU rules. EI was/is very profitable too, probably just as healthy as BA is. Oh, and in this game there are no winners and losers. Except maybe the shareholders. WW or BALPA cannot WIN, just bleed each other till someone outside the ring throws in the towel, and everyone goes home to lick their wounds, but the BA Pilots life committed to the seniority list will feel the pain for years. Not WW.

WW did not win at Aer Lingus, yes he managed the railroad through changes in working conditions and pay in all departments through post 9/11 hysteria and creative accounting. But he failed miserably in his plan to OWN the airline through a failed management buyout bid. WW, 25 years from spotty faced cadet at the bottom of the seniority list to OWNING the Airline! Would have made a great book, but alas the real Big Boss Bertie Ahern knew what was really going on. WW's plan to mismanage the company and shipwreck the national airline, before buying it cheap with his financial cronies failed. The subsequent quick rebuild and share price increase would have made him Millions. Too bad Willie. Well at least you managed to jump ship to BA at the right time, and go back to doing what you do best, taking on Pilots, taking on your own.

The BALPA fight being talked up by pilots on this thread already looks very weak, not that hard a fight for seasoned WW.


Ornithopter - The other way of solving the pension problem is going after your Union, unity, and cost base. Things will fall like a pack of cards after that. WW IS exhausting the other possibilities! Stick together!

Suv,

Just watch this space.It looks from your post you really are looking forward to to seeing the BA pilots taking a real beating.

We'll just have to wait and see.:ouch:

WTDWL.

WTDWL,

Yes I will watch this space with great interest. Fortunately as a bystander this time.

I have already been threatened with : compulsory redundancy, suspension, redeployment, disciplinary investigation, and been on strike and locked out along with my colleagues while under WW's reign.

I do not want to see the BA guys or anyone getting a beating as you claim. Once their terms and conditions go down, everyone else in the UK goes down to. I am not employed in the UK and probably never will be but this is an International industry which knows no borders.

I am concerned about people like you who don't quite know what you could be up against, don't know much about WW, and come out with comments like Pathetic, well thats told WW now hasn't it!!!:{ As I've said before the only thing that will save you is 100% unity and that is what BALPA must acheive , and quick.

Yes,

We'll just have to wait and see.

Thanks for your concerns Suv. From your vantage point you are only trying to warn everyone what is likely to happen and I agree with you entirely. I joined BA just before WW. Having weighed up the pros and cons I thought BA would work out for the best, then WW joined. It is a whole new equation now and I wouldn't have joined if I had known this big variable.

Suv,

Fair comments.

WTDWL.

As opposed to EI, who hadn't?

There are simplistic scenarios being spouted here that would make Oliver Stone, king of conspiracy, a proud man.

So WW intended to run down EI, buy it and then implement a "quick fix" to make millions? Such a simplistic view of the complexities of running a large and complex organisation belittles opinion on how to fix the BA pension problem.

This is not about shafting pilots. it's about fixing a hole that has arisen for a whole range of issues. Who's going to suffer under the current proposals? the members of the scheme; no debate. Are the current proposals right? That's where the debate is. But that debate should not be a simplistic "WW with baseball bat" debate. if he could magic a solution that avoided confrontation he would, because it's easier for him. He can't however, and so he'll look to fix it another way. And if that way means pain for one group of people then we know he'll not shirk from taking that option.

This is a MASSIVE problem which is why radical action is being talked about by management. it would take years of profits going fully into the pension fund to fix it. And if the profits are going into the pension fund they're not going to sharegholders who, ultimately, are... pension funds, needing the cash to pay pension liabilities now.

it's a very difficult situation. But it's not a simplistic one, so keep the debate off the bottom and out of the mud.

sugden-time to reflect
 

The pension hole real as it is presents an opportunity for particular type of management culture.
"Are the current proposals right?"
This is not where the debate should be. "Is this the issue to test the unity?"
"Is this the issue to impose the will, the right to manage?"

Sugden - I think you are mostly right, however, it wouldn't take "years of profits going fully into the pension fund to fix it". At first glance that may seem so, but in reality:

1. BA could sensibly fix the problem in the 10 years they would have from the pensions regulator. In that time, they could also pay a dividend.

2. If you look at it another way, BA could fix the problem sensibly in two years and pay a dividend after that.

3. Alternatively BA could fix it this year, and deplete the cash reserves, but that would not be sensible.

4. They could also take it from us.

If they choose the last one, I think a strike is fair, warranted and a distinct possibility. If they do 3, I think they are exposing the business to too much risk. 1 or 2 would be my favoured options.

BA have been paying off significant debt over the last 3 years. There is no reason why the pensions debt should not be paid off in the same way. It is a debt like any other.

If the Chancellor changes the tax law for profits, BA don't come asking for it from our pensions. If interest rates change so that charges on the aircraft borrowing goes up, BA don't come and ask for it from our pensions. If we live longer, perhaps that is down to us, so I will pay an extra 10% of my current pension payments to cover it, but I will not pay any extra for interest rates or Chancellors. BA can afford to pay that, like they would any other debt, if it changed the same way as pension debt has changed.

12 pages and not much further on. I still hope you win. This pension debt is pretty much quantifiable, finite number of people affected, affordable in the grand scheme of thing in BA finances over time and whats more important its what you contracted into. That said FSP are dead in the water for most.

However, if you really must strike, do you think you could just get on with the ballot and do it, preferably not in Feb coz I'm off to OZ and currently torn between Emirates at £860 and BA at £1600 (my wife will think its her right to spend more than the difference in DXB duty free).

Could you also take a tip from the Danes, when they came in boats with oars, they didn't warn us they were coming and consequently all the girls in Largs got a good rogering. When they go on strike their thread starts 'SAS on strike'; note this is not the same as 'SAS prepared to' or 'SAS might try to scare their boss and the travelling public by gently suggesting IA'. Just a thought

Word of caution, if by any chance you do have your ballot and it happens to highlight any divisions within the pilot workforce please don't be surprised if Willie drives in a wedge to split you further, also don't be surprised if you get lots of posts saying I told you so. Not from me obviously I'll be on your web site applying for a DEC.

BTW, no offence to Danes or the girls in Largs.

EI-CFC, aka SAAB340;)

I have re read the wording of my post and apologise for the way it sounded.It in no way was meant to imply that the good folk from EI did'nt try.

No offence meant.

WTDWL.

Yes, well if we had had a massive change in our (BA) terms imposed on us like SAS, then I might have titled this thread along the lines you suggest.

But as I was publicising a BALPA website instead, I didn't.

Overstress (looking forward to Willie trying to drive his wooden wedges into the workforce... or whatever :hmm: )

Going in to flight ops management at BA has often been known euphamistically as "going over to the Dark Side", so I am more than a little suspicious of "Darkstar's" pronouncements of disunity on a nightstop straw poll. As SUV suggests, we need absolute unity of the BA pilot force to deal with WW's pensions grab, for that is what it is, so what better to undermine this than spreading the rumour that unity is lacking?

The trouble for the Darkstar point of view is that unity is not lacking -every single trip I do I meet pilots absolutely resolute on this issue - every single one. That includes BARP members and those in APS. I have not met one single waverer, and have in every case waited to hear a view expressed before engaging in the pension debate, rather than express my own and demand agreement.

BA have virtually said that they can afford to pay for pensions, but that they just dont want to. Its put to us as: "pensions or new aeroplanes"? I.e. we can either pay for the new aircraft with what would have been our pensions, or else!

This tactic was tried at Birmingham, (hi there Rob, how is management these days?!), where pilot concessions were used to "fund" 'investment' in new aircraft..............that then never turned up. Funny old thing.

BA pilots are not naive any more, and I suggest that WW has the fight of his life on his hands. If NAPS closes or goes to career averaging, BA is finished. Finished because it will be impossible to run in the aftermath of a strike where the terms are "take it or leave it", impossible to run without ANY goodwill, and equally impossible to run with contract pilots - there aren't 3000 people out there with the correct CAA/JAR licenses and type ratings, and if there were there would'nt be any BA trainers to train them, let alone an insurance company willing to underwrite such an unkown quantity.

I strongly suspect that there will be a ballot even if increased contributions are sought. BA has lied and spun to the pilots for years, as well as abusing engineering with endless reorganisations. This time it isn't working. I have never seen people so incensed AND yet also quietly resolved to defy this pensions raid.

Odd that WW seeks his fortune at others cost every time. Last time it was the Irish taxpayer with his flawed plan to privatise Aer Lingus and enrich himself with the proceeds, this time its BA's pensioners in waiting, where WW's bonus will see an exponential rise if he can pull-off the grab of the new century.

News just in for BA management and City observers thereof:

He cant.

Fred, where do you get the idea that you can't be replaced? I assume you are a Nigel from the tone of your post. Well there are hundreds of us out there flying big jets with 1000s of hours accident free who would love your job. Yes, we have chips on our shoulders because we either failed the BA selection or other circumstances. But we are out there flying for EK, CX etc and prepared to come back to blighty for the going rate.
I would guess that 3000 pilots aren't required either as short haul would be scrapped.
I suggest you come to the best deal you can without striking and watch your backs!

You think theres a 1000 744 rated people out there willing to work for BA? Then how come barely 20 744 rated pilots have applied? As has been previously mentioned several times, if BA starts sacking people they'll have no TRI/TREs left, which could make for an interesting training program as they try to rebuild the operation.

You guess wrong. CEO after CEO have said they can't scrap short haul, it's essential for the feeder traffic. Unless you know better than Bob Ayling, rod Eddingtion and Willie Walsh put together.

Anyway theres only about 1000 short haul pilots so you still need 2000. As 200 of the 300 odd we flew into LHR were transfering to short haul the other morning i'd suggest binning it entirely might be a bad idea.

747,

You may think you would come back to BA but there are many pilots with good experience turning BA down due to the package being offered and temped elsewhere with tax-free incentives and accommodation etc.

BA for pilots is no longer 'golden runways' and with our caring new boss at the helm of HMS 'Shaft'em' is now even less attractive.

Do though step over the fence if you think the grass is greener.But beware where ever you step over tread carefully because it looks like all the cows(four legged type) in the UK have done their mess!!!:ok: .

WTDWL.

C'mon down to job swap! AS IF!!

It ain't gonna happen and we all know it. BA without the pension is just not worth it - nor bidline either. If WW removes either of those items then the gloves are off and all bets taken. I am certain of the collective feeling on these two items. If WW removes either there will only be one loser - him.