Ba Pension Trustees & A Missing Ballot.
 

Can someone explain how the NAPS trustees can sign the agreement on the new proposal without waiting for the results of TU ballots?

We were promised a vote.

What happened?:mad:

In law, there is no requirement for any form of negotiation or consultation before trustees make changes to a pension scheme. They are only required to consult with the company (not the unions).

In the case of BA, both negotiation and consultation took place with the unions. However, there was always the possibility of the Trustees (or indeed the Pension Regulator) imposing a deal on the staff.

Both the unions and BA were bright enough to realise that this was not the best idea so they entered into negotiations, which resulted in the agreement between BA and the Trustees last week. As a result, the pension deal has been finalised. Legally, the unions get no input on this.

Most unions have balloted their members to gain acceptance or otherwise (BASSA didn't ballot on this, strangely!!). However, the Trustees are required by law to protect existing pensions as their priority, almost to the exclusion of all else so the ballots themselves are effectively a rubber stamping exercise for what the unions have negotiated (or not in the case of the GMB). The problem the GMB now have is that further negotiations regarding the pension cannot achieve anything as the final deal has been signed off by the Trustees, which to reiterate, are not required to deal with unions. A strike will also have no bearing on the new pension deal for the same reason.

That may or may not be good news for you but it's the story so far....

First of all thank you for replying so eloquently.

However,

It may not have been the best idea (to get the regulator involved) for BA and the high paid. IE Pilots. But for the rest of us plebs who will have to foot the bill the regulator would have been a risk worth taking.

I am disgusted with the trustees. The pension I had has gone and I wasn't allowed to even question the decision. If a private or public financial organisation did this the FSA would have a field day!
Even worse, is that in 2009 they will be able to do it all again as part of the "shared responsibility". :mad:

We all have to foot the bill one way or another. Personally, I'm footing a fair bill myself, compared to what I paid before and I'll be getting less out. I'm sure there's an expert out there who can put some figures up here to show you that we're all paying more for less, not just the "plebs".

IMHO, the whole thing is a crock. However, there was no way any of us were going to do any better out of BA, strike or no strike.:{

I think the Pension Trustees are required to act in the best interests of all members of the Pension, aware that some members were getting a better deal in NAPs 1 and 2(ie. flying staff), then to allow changes that that give some members an 18.75% Pensionable Pay Rise(ie. flying staff) appears most UnFair.
.
Ground staff would have done better if the Regulator was used to sort out this mess.
.
I would guess when all the ground staff understand how UnFair they have been treated in these pension changes we will see various Legal Actions starting, it could be a slow painful show???:(

Shared Responsibility
 

Turin - The proposal to share the risk of increased life expectancy was dropped. So we have been saved from this risk of shared responsibility. It is worth noting this also means we won't get a reduction in payments if the prospects for the scheme ever improve in the future. A case of no risk no gain to us, but I think we've got the better end of the deal on this.

If the stock market goes against us and the deficit gets bigger, I'm sure we will be reminded of shared responsibility.

Apparently the pensions regulator would have imposed a settlement at the end of March if the trustees hadn't reached an agreement. If that was the case, the regulator's first duty is to people currently drawing a pension, so we could have been worse off. Unfortunately we will never know how good or bad it would have been, so we cannot make a clear judgement if we would have been better or worse off.

CB

... and even with that, our pensionable pay is still less than our basic. Plus, we're not getting it for free, we still have to pay for it.

HF, I understand what you say.
.
If the company want the pensions sorted and happy staff to boot they will offer all staff the choice to accept this 18.75% pensionable pay rise, if they don't, we will be watching a long bitter show???

Perhaps you are missing the point of this 18.75% increase.... I dont actually get a payrise at all, i get a pay cut. Instead I have to pay 33% more in pension contributions for 30 more years (both because of the 18.75% increase, and due to the increased contribution rates), and in the end I'll have the same pension as I would have had before this 'deal'. All in all I pay double the contributions to keep the pension as it is now.

You however (altough I dont know your personal circumstances) have a decreased accrual rate which will mean your percentage of final salary will be lower. It will decrease by an amount in the order of around 5%. You can however save more in AVC's now if you desire the same pension as before.

So the choice we have is a 5% cut in your pension, or a doubling of the pension contributiuons. Which one would you like? :hmm:

Joetom,

They may do, although I doubt it. Either way, you would still have to pay for it yourself - same as we are.

Out of interest, and not trying to start an argument, what percentage of your basic pay is your pensionable? Prior to the new agreement, ours was 80%. Now it is 95%.

HF,
.
Ground staff pen pay is same as basic pay minus the abait figure or 15% depending on NAPs 1 or 2, all other extras like shift pay are outside and do not count for pen pay.
.
My understanding is the company put all flying staff extras like shift or flying pay into basic and that is why at present flying staff get pen pay on 80% of present basic pay.
.
I think it is only Fair that if the company are offering a 18.75% pen pay rise to some staff, they should offer it to all, they could make it an option on changes, tick if you want it will be fine, then any flying staff who think it's a bad deal can leave the box empty, like it or not this would appear Fair and be an Equitable outcome?

And I think it's fair that if the 18.75% pen pay rise is offered to all then they should all have to accept a ten year increase in their respective NRAs. Then certainly

Unless you are suggesting that you should only have a 5 year NRA increase but still take the financial compensation associated with a 10 year increase?

Is that including the abatement HF ?:) I'd settle for a pro rata amount CM 9% for 5 years! ;)

Yachtno1,
.
9% is better that now't, but look at it another way, flying staff take out more than ground staff now, shut NAPs 1 and 2, then allow all staff to join this New NAPs on the same terms, only problem is this would be Fair.:eek:
.
The company said they wanted a one time fix on this pension, the above would fill that hole.!!!:ugh:

CaptSly. I will have to almost double my pension payments to recieve a lower accrual rate than at present. And your "Basic Salary" includes an average of expenses that was incorporated into it a few years back. Whereas ground staff payments like shift pay and allowances are non-pensionable.:ugh:

I'm sure this discussion could go on infinitum .. but the plain fact is that all the F/D I've seen (and I see about 10 to 12 crews each day at work) are content with the deal. I've not heard one dissenting voice. I'd just like the flight crew to admit they've achieved a better deal than the ground staff!:ugh:

Oh for pitys sake you moron! How many times do we need to ram it into your obviously thick skull that your claim that flying staff take out more is completey, utterly false. It is untrue. It is a lie which you perpetuate.
We could shut NAPS 1 and NAPS 2 if you like, but you'd still have to fund the deficit now and the whole deal would have to be restructured. You'd still have to pay your share, and the flying staff would still refuse to work extra years to fund your share of the deficit.
Spin it how you will, the deal is done and we're not going to pay for you. Welcome to the real world.

I'd like the ground staff to admit that the flight crew are penalised by a greater increase in retirement age than they are, at that comes at a price.

Yacht1 and joe tom, lots of banging your heads against the wall with you 2 isn't there? Its typical of how you and your union the GMB have misread the situation entirely, and are now using you as cannon fodder in their battle as to who runs BA, the Unions or WW (I know who I would rather have).:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

As with BASSA you are being used as prawns in a bigger game of chess, thank god for the BASSA team Tony Woodley saw the light and scrapped them out the bottom of the hole that they had dug for themselves.:eek:

Its been repeated time and time again by some more patient contributers than me, to try and help you out, but if you want to base your decision on ramp rumours and union hype then its down to you.:ok:

FACTS:ok:

Much of our allowances are not pensionable, just like your shift pay.Its true that after 2003 the non pensionable element is less. However still 27% of my income from variable allowances is non pensionable

The pensionable pay rise from 80% of basic to 95% of basic is a theoretical amount, NO ONE WILL GET ANY MORE MONEY IN THEIR PAY INSTEAD IT WILL LESS CASH IN TAKE HOME PAY!!! UNDERSTAND???

This pensionable pay rise has been self funded by the flight crew by sacrificing the 5 year transition period which had always been on the table from the start (and cabin crew if they accept the deal) perhaps you would like to self fund yours by working an additional 10 years as opposed 5!!

If you take me as example. Before this mess I was due to retire at age 55 with £xxxx amount of pension based on 6.5% contributions. In order to get this same amount at age 60, I must work another 5 years (some think this is a good thing, I don't) and now pay 8.5% of 95% of my basic as opposed to 6.5% of 80% of my basic just to break even. If i want to buy back to age 55 with 1/52nd build up I will need to pay a whopping 23.5% of pensionable pay

In summery as with everyone flight crew will pay more and work longer just stand still. There are no winners, and from where I sit, NO I DO NOT THINK THIS IS A GOOD DEAL, just the best thats on the table.

Role on the legal challenges from the GMB, thats if they have the money in the union coffers for it:yuk: :yuk:

Our Union is Amicus DD ... and there's no need to shout. No-one said you got a payrise! Scroll back if you don't believe me. I'll have to pay 11.5% of my pensionable pay to keep the status quo. Stay cool ;)

sorry yacht 1, but it does appear that there is a hell of a lot of ill informed gossip going around.
As I have for you could you elaborate on your 11% contribution rate? Is that 11% to keep the status quo, or 11% for an extra 5 years to age 65?? cos as I have said to you, to keep my status quo will cost 23.5%.:oh: :uhoh:

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.