It's a shame that people do not understand what they are ranting about. Absolutely clueless.
The directors have not got a windfall. They have not got a penny. No money has been added to their salary. No shares have been added to their portfolio. They have been given an option to buy shares at a price that was set ABOVE what they were when they received the offer. Anyone here can do the same at a negligable cost by buying a future.
IF they manage to manage the company ie avoid the effect of strikes, increase traffic, increase profits, MANAGE THE PENSION DEFICIT, and increase the markets assessment of the value of BA, then they can put their CASH into buying shares IF the value of the shares has risen above where it was when they were made the offer. Their job is to manage the company and produce a return for the shareholders. The best way of holding them to account directly by their management ie the owners, is by rewarding them on the way they increase the value of the company. That is what this offer does. If they fail they do not get a penny.
The £3m mentioned in the article is the value of ALL of the shares that ALL of the directors have options to buy. If they rise by 10% then they amouint they will earn is £300k between all of them ... less than the cost of two useless Union leaders.
It is in EVERY EMPLOYEES best interest that this scheme exists.
Edited to say: I do understand that people find these issues complicated and I'm sorry I'm an irritating bu*ger - but trusting what you read in the Daily Mail seems an unusual and unepected new trend ............
For those that don't understand finance .. it's a bit like beeing offered at Iceland £3m worth of Arctic Rolls at a few % above it's current price which you can take up at a set time in the future if you can find someone else to buy them at a higher price in the future .......
Hardly a windfall.
Ah but UK1, your (correct) analysis doesnt further the "workers of the world unite" rant, so it wont prove very poplular with some on this forum