NP DD .. 11.5% to retain NRA of 60 and 1/56ths accrual rate ..:ok:

Transitional = changing, developmental, fluid, intermediate, passing, provisional, temporary, transitionary, unsettled.
.
Permanent = abiding, constant, durable, enduring, everlasting, fixed, immutable, imperishable, indestructible, invariable, lasting, long-lasting, perennial, perpetual, persistent, stable, steadfast, unchanging, unfading.
.
How Transitional can change into Permanent and be called Fair is hard to understand.:rolleyes:
.
However if the company offered all staff the option to increase their Pensionable Pay by 18.75%, (ie, treat all staff the same) am sure most would see that as Fair.:D

Bolleaux.

I get Basic Pay (95% of which is pensionable on the new deal - was 80%).

I get Flying Pay (£10 per flying hour, 0% of which is or ever has been pensionable).

I get Time Away From Base pay. (£2.74 per hour, 0% of which is or ever has been pensionable).

Oh, nearly forgot. I now have to work an extra ten years to get a lower pension.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rumour!!

Now, is there a cat in hell's chance that you can stop bleating and actually take in the facts which are presented by people who obviously know more about the subject than you do!! You've only been told a dozen times!!!

keep banging your head against the wall joetom:ugh: :ugh:

Might beat some brains into it:mad: :mad:

Its been pointed out to you, that in order for flying staff to maintain their status quo contributions of 23.5% are needed, even after the uplift in pensionable pay. Compare this to 11% for members of ground staff, still think your on a loser.:E

I have been told via PM that ground staffs pensionable pay is already at 100% of basic, would you care to refute that? and if so how would you incorporate an uplift of 15%?

If we are talking about fair then maybe you should work an extra 10 years:D :D :D , or alternatively maybe you should make contributions of 23%:D

As I have said keep letting your union wind you up, cos pensions are not the route cause of their posturing, and your being used, just like the cabin crew, and ask yourself what did they get?

Grounds staff pensionable pay is Basic pay less 15% (Naps2) or Basic pay less £5996 (Naps1). and DD we're getting F@rk all info from our "Union" !:hmm:

I showed a private pensions expert all the figures on Flying and Ground Staff Pension deals.
.
She confirms Flying staff get more of the Pension Cake in NAPs and if the changes go ahead, Flying Staff will get an even bigger Cake in relation to the poor old Ground Staff.
.
She agrees with many comments on here, Yes the flying staff will pay more money in, but at the end of the day, flying staff are getting the best value.
.
She suggests, if the ground unions don't get a fair deal for ground staff that I should get a flying job inside the company;)

Go for it!! It would be nice to see a few more Pruners being proactive for a change.

I cant believe this argument is still about.


We take more of the pension pot. No we dont. We take out exactly the same percentage as we (+ the company on our behalf) pay in.
We have just got a massive pensionable payrise. No we havn't. We have just got a 10 year increase to our working lives - double what non flying staff have got.


If you are angry, be angry with your union. Go and ask them why the smallest union, with the smallest financial clout, in the company made ALL the running in the pension debate. WE were the ones who paid for independant auditors to find out exactly how much the company actually could afford. WE were the ones who told the city why the company were being untruthful and pressured them into concessions. What the h**l were YOUR lot doing for the last year?
My contributions are higher. My salary is the same. My retirement age has gone up 10 years. My pension is less. Ah yes, lucky old me.


Given all that, why are flight crew generally happy? Because old NAPS was only 70% funded so we know we wouldn't have got that pension anyway. Because we actually asked experts what the best BA could afford would be, rather than spending our time playing whose got the biggest *****, sorry membership, and have accepted a less than perfect, but reasonable offer. Now we are just going to get on with making the best of it.


Sorry if you feel left out. Still, an ATPL is only £90 000 away.....

thats 2 years money for me !:)

Thats interesting. How does the private pensions expert know what the flying staff pay in and what BA pays in for them? Does she know our pay scales and the overall contributions over a career. She'd have to know all the details of the fund, and thats not something that can be covered in an afternoons work. I doubt she does, so how does she know who is taking what out of the fund? I think one of two things have happened here. Either:

1) You haven't seen a private pensions expert at all and you are making the whole thing up (the more likely course of events I believe)

2) Your private pensions expert really hasn't got a clue what shes talking about.

This 'expert opinion' seems rather like some of the previous back of a fag packet calculations. They are all cast iron opinions based on at best a fraction of the data available and hence really aren't worth the paper (or cardboard) they are written on.

PS You claim she said the flying staff are getting the best 'value'. Well value is subjective and depends on what price you place against time, hence the term value is only valid against whatever set of criteria you give her to assign. Your value at only working 5 years more is very different to my value of working ten years more.

CM,
.
Her view on value, was money in V's money out by staff members, flying staff have had better value on NAPs and will have better value with this new son of NAPs.
.
I think we all understand that all staff will get less value in the future.
.
Pls see these 2 ex below.
.
A. Flying staff with 5 years service gets a 18.75% pensionable pay rise and works with the comapny for another 25 yrs.
.
B. Ground staff as above, less the 18.75%.
.
These two staff earn the same amout of money every year, they both do 30 yrs with the company, the flying staff will pay more in pension than the ground staff, the company will pay more into the pension to match these payments, the result will be the flying staff gets better value.
.
As I said before, if these changes go through, we will see some long legal battles in the future and unhappy ground staff to boot.
.
Please understand, I do not want flying staff to loose pension deal, I would just like ground staff to get a bite of the cake and for the company to treat all staff the same, this would be Fair I thinks.
.
Cheers:)

Lets address this in two ways.

1) Money in vs money out argument. Your independent pensions expert only knows how much you put in and how much you will take out, because that is what you have told her. Neither you, nor her, know how much flying staff put in, how much BA put in on their behalf, or how much they take out. Thus, she is in no position to state that flying staff get better value out of NAPS as she has no data to compare against ground staff. She is also flatly contradicting the statements made by the trustees who do have that information. You would be advised, yet again, to drop this spurious claim as anyone with an ounce of analytical ability can see right through it.

2) I quote:
So both staff earn the same amount of money, hence the pension they both earned during the previous 5 years are effectively identical in that they both get 5/accrual rate * salary at year 5. Sure the flight crew have a better accrual rate, but they also have a better salary. To say their accrual rate is better 'value' is like saying their salary is better 'value'. It's nothing to do with value, it's just better.

In the ongoing case you seem to have conveniently excluded the fact that the flying staff cannot work 25 years longer and retire on the same terms as the ground staff member. Lets say for arguments sake that both staff members are 35 years old. The pilot was planning to retire at 55, the ground staff (GS) at 60, as per the contracts. Under the new deal the GS will have to work to 65 (a five year increase) but will see their percentage contributions remain static. For the pilot to go at 60 (a five year increase) he will see his pensions contributions increase to 8.25% for the next 25 years. Did your pensions expert factor that into the 'value' calculation?

I sincerely hope that you didn't pay good money to this pensions 'expert' you claim to have consulted as she is clearly nothing of the sort. The ground staff have had their 'bite of the cake', which is only being compelled to work five years longer to achieve their pension. The price of an extra 5 years is 18.75%. You agree to work until 70 you get your 18.75%. Its as simple as that. Do you want it? You keep talking about all staff being treated the same but you seem to go all coy when I suggest you take a ten year increase to your NRA. Or perhaps you would like to keep your five year increase but all flying staff take a ten year increase without compensation? But then that wouldn't be treating all staff the same would it? Of course you won't answer these rather difficult questions as you have no real desire to see all staff treated the same. You want the flying staff to fund your share of the deficit.

CM,
.
Look at it another way, if the company changed all NRAs to 50, because GS have the bigger change, they will get a boost of 18.75% to make this Fair, get real, talk the talk, but smell the coffee.
.
Just ask other staff in the company if they think this new deal is Fair and Honest for all staff, or does it favour some at the cost of others.
.
I'm all rite jack, pull the ladder up before the ground unions cop on, they will cop on and the legal process will start.!!!
.
Cheers, plus oneeight.sevenfive???:sad:

Rather depends on how it's going to affect your pension. Your statement in isolation is meaningless. You can rant and rave all you like, inspired by the GMB no doubt, but I don't really care if you 'cop on'. We all own a share of the deficit but you want flying staff to pay off more than their fare share. Where the numbers are crunched you want the flying staff to pay off proportionally more of the deficit than you. Thats the end of the story. You can take it to court if you like but I've no doubt BA and the flying staff unions will fight it all the way. I'm not paying your bills just because Ed Blissett believes in wealth redistribution.