Bmi pensions to be cut after sale to BA
Apr 19, 2012, 3:59 pm
#16
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Reading, Berks, England
Posts: 186
I am afraid that it is nothing new with LH. They transferred their ground staff to 100% company Globe Ground in 1995, then sold it to Penauille in 2001 then
http://www.professionalpensions.com/...p-benefit-cuts
So ruining peoples expectations seems to be the norm for them
http://www.professionalpensions.com/...p-benefit-cuts
So ruining peoples expectations seems to be the norm for them
Apr 19, 2012, 4:04 pm
#17
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 5 miles from EMA
Programs: BD, BAEC Pleb, VS Pleb, Accor Pleb, HHonors Gold, Big White Season Pass
Posts: 5,904
The pensions thing just adds to the aura of everything being done out of pure spite.
Apr 19, 2012, 4:12 pm
#18
Community Director
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Norwich, UK
Programs: A3*G, BA Gold, BD Gold (in memoriam), IHG Diamond Ambassador
Posts: 8,476
Could I humbly suggest you actually read the article in The Telegraph linked by the OP?
You might consider the ultimate words of the fund's Trustee as being independent, credible and damning. You might also wonder why LH themselves are credited with a statement indicating a previous proposal was rejected, leading to a "last resort" move to transfer the fund to the PPF.
Good enough evidence to me they wanted rid whatever the cost to their (former) employees, and quite a diversion from every other statement to emerge indicating that they would continue to take responsibility.
What more details are you expecting?
You might consider the ultimate words of the fund's Trustee as being independent, credible and damning. You might also wonder why LH themselves are credited with a statement indicating a previous proposal was rejected, leading to a "last resort" move to transfer the fund to the PPF.
Good enough evidence to me they wanted rid whatever the cost to their (former) employees, and quite a diversion from every other statement to emerge indicating that they would continue to take responsibility.
What more details are you expecting?
Apr 19, 2012, 5:44 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 11,582
A few extracts from a letter to staff:
Lufthansa and the Trustees, having taken independent professional advice, tried their utmost to maintain the Scheme as a going concern within the Lufthansa Group and reached an agreement on this basis in December 2011. Regrettably, this original agreement was not approved by the Pensions Regulator.
The Scheme joining the PPF will result in members receiving compensation that is less than their full expected benefits from the Scheme. In order to make up for some of the reductionsin benefits, Lufthansa, after negotiations with the Trustees, will voluntarily pay £84 million to provide members with additional pension benefits separate from the PPF. This amount is equal to the financial commitment Lufthansa had provided towards the existing bmi Pension Scheme under the terms of the original agreement. Lufthansa has informed the Trustees that the funds should be distributed according to individual members’ characteristics, taking into account levels of pension and length of pensionable service. We will provide details on how the £84 million will be used in a further announcement.
Lufthansa announced at the end of last year that a binding agreement had been signed for the sale of bmi to IAG.
As part of the sale, it was proposed that a British holding company of Lufthansa would become responsible for the Scheme. The terms agreed between Lufthansa and the Trustees were subject to approval by the Pensions Regulator in the UK (a body set up by the Government to protect the benefits of members of work-based pension schemes).
The agreement was fully supported by the Trustees on independent professional advice. However, the Pensions Regulator unfortunately determined that it would not support these proposals.
As their preferred route was no longer possible, the Trustees entered into negotiations involving Lufthansa, the Pensions Regulator and the PPF. As a consequence, it is now expected that the Scheme will enter the PPF. In addition, we have negotiated with Lufthansa to make available an extra £84 million to provide members with additional pension benefits outside the PPF to help compensate for some of the reduction in members’ benefits. The Trustees appreciate the concern that members will have and we will communicate further information as soon as the position becomes clearer.
As part of the sale, it was proposed that a British holding company of Lufthansa would become responsible for the Scheme. The terms agreed between Lufthansa and the Trustees were subject to approval by the Pensions Regulator in the UK (a body set up by the Government to protect the benefits of members of work-based pension schemes).
The agreement was fully supported by the Trustees on independent professional advice. However, the Pensions Regulator unfortunately determined that it would not support these proposals.
As their preferred route was no longer possible, the Trustees entered into negotiations involving Lufthansa, the Pensions Regulator and the PPF. As a consequence, it is now expected that the Scheme will enter the PPF. In addition, we have negotiated with Lufthansa to make available an extra £84 million to provide members with additional pension benefits outside the PPF to help compensate for some of the reduction in members’ benefits. The Trustees appreciate the concern that members will have and we will communicate further information as soon as the position becomes clearer.
Apr 20, 2012, 12:44 am
#20
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 851
Could I humbly suggest you actually read the article in The Telegraph linked by the OP?
You might consider the ultimate words of the fund's Trustee as being independent, credible and damning. You might also wonder why LH themselves are credited with a statement indicating a previous proposal was rejected, leading to a "last resort" move to transfer the fund to the PPF.
Good enough evidence to me they wanted rid whatever the cost to their (former) employees, and quite a diversion from every other statement to emerge indicating that they would continue to take responsibility.
What more details are you expecting?
You might consider the ultimate words of the fund's Trustee as being independent, credible and damning. You might also wonder why LH themselves are credited with a statement indicating a previous proposal was rejected, leading to a "last resort" move to transfer the fund to the PPF.
Good enough evidence to me they wanted rid whatever the cost to their (former) employees, and quite a diversion from every other statement to emerge indicating that they would continue to take responsibility.
What more details are you expecting?
If they've unpicked past service rights - that's very poor.
At the moment that's not clear - unless I've missed a line about it
Apr 20, 2012, 2:39 am
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,167
It is a disgrace.
Pure and simple.
A massive company finds the cash to fulfill its obligations to Sir MB to buy out his remaining stake in BMI and then years later cannot make sure the staff get the full pensions they have worked for and been promised.
And it lets the UK - pensioners and taxpayers. that is US, who fund the pension protection fund - pick up the tab.
As my old Dad used to say when he heard news like this from Germany: I got this RAF tie for bombing Nazi b*st*rds, and I obviously missed a few.
(I was going to say just: bombing the b*'s, but he used the word Nazi to mean bad Germans.)
There are many many good Germans. They obviously just don't run LH.
Pure and simple.
A massive company finds the cash to fulfill its obligations to Sir MB to buy out his remaining stake in BMI and then years later cannot make sure the staff get the full pensions they have worked for and been promised.
And it lets the UK - pensioners and taxpayers. that is US, who fund the pension protection fund - pick up the tab.
As my old Dad used to say when he heard news like this from Germany: I got this RAF tie for bombing Nazi b*st*rds, and I obviously missed a few.
(I was going to say just: bombing the b*'s, but he used the word Nazi to mean bad Germans.)
There are many many good Germans. They obviously just don't run LH.
Blaming the Germans is neither fair nor adaequate.
You guys on this forum were always so proud that this is great UK airline. I read so many insults on Lufthansa in particular after the takeover in this forum. LH managed this tiny airline for three years and did not manage the turnaround.
So what?
The problem now is there where it deserves to be: On the British Isles and not on the continent. Why should LH shareholders pay for pension schemes of the last 40 years and entitlements gained under SMB's rule? No way. LH sold the airline, IAG bought it and IAG is obviously not willing to pick up the bill. However, bmi is a UK company, a UK airline, operating in the UK, UK staff and you guys expect funding from the continent? What about British pride? No way.
I am English and German I see that from a birds eye perspective. I pay my taxes in both countries. But British Midland is certainly a UK issue and we need to deal with that in UK and do not need to ask for subsidies from the continent.
Apr 20, 2012, 3:28 am
#23
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 5 miles from EMA
Programs: BD, BAEC Pleb, VS Pleb, Accor Pleb, HHonors Gold, Big White Season Pass
Posts: 5,904
Lack of strategy, lack of good management and clear direction, lack of revenue management, lack of investment, take your pick.
LH have done themselves a lot of damage with this one because the perception is that had they made a proper effort from day 1, things might have been a lot different.
Apr 20, 2012, 6:42 am
#24
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,839
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3)
Blaming the Germans is neither fair nor adaequate.
You guys on this forum were always so proud that this is great UK airline. I read so many insults on Lufthansa in particular after the takeover in this forum. LH managed this tiny airline for three years and did not manage the turnaround.
So what?
The problem now is there where it deserves to be: On the British Isles and not on the continent. Why should LH shareholders pay for pension schemes of the last 40 years and entitlements gained under SMB's rule? No way. LH sold the airline, IAG bought it and IAG is obviously not willing to pick up the bill. However, bmi is a UK company, a UK airline, operating in the UK, UK staff and you guys expect funding from the continent? What about British pride? No way.
I am English and German I see that from a birds eye perspective. I pay my taxes in both countries. But British Midland is certainly a UK issue and we need to deal with that in UK and do not need to ask for subsidies from the continent.
European when it's suits....
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
It is a disgrace.
Pure and simple.
A massive company finds the cash to fulfill its obligations to Sir MB to buy out his remaining stake in BMI and then years later cannot make sure the staff get the full pensions they have worked for and been promised.
And it lets the UK - pensioners and taxpayers. that is US, who fund the pension protection fund - pick up the tab.
As my old Dad used to say when he heard news like this from Germany: I got this RAF tie for bombing Nazi b*st*rds, and I obviously missed a few.
(I was going to say just: bombing the b*'s, but he used the word Nazi to mean bad Germans.)
There are many many good Germans. They obviously just don't run LH.
Pure and simple.
A massive company finds the cash to fulfill its obligations to Sir MB to buy out his remaining stake in BMI and then years later cannot make sure the staff get the full pensions they have worked for and been promised.
And it lets the UK - pensioners and taxpayers. that is US, who fund the pension protection fund - pick up the tab.
As my old Dad used to say when he heard news like this from Germany: I got this RAF tie for bombing Nazi b*st*rds, and I obviously missed a few.
(I was going to say just: bombing the b*'s, but he used the word Nazi to mean bad Germans.)
There are many many good Germans. They obviously just don't run LH.
Blaming the Germans is neither fair nor adaequate.
You guys on this forum were always so proud that this is great UK airline. I read so many insults on Lufthansa in particular after the takeover in this forum. LH managed this tiny airline for three years and did not manage the turnaround.
So what?
The problem now is there where it deserves to be: On the British Isles and not on the continent. Why should LH shareholders pay for pension schemes of the last 40 years and entitlements gained under SMB's rule? No way. LH sold the airline, IAG bought it and IAG is obviously not willing to pick up the bill. However, bmi is a UK company, a UK airline, operating in the UK, UK staff and you guys expect funding from the continent? What about British pride? No way.
I am English and German I see that from a birds eye perspective. I pay my taxes in both countries. But British Midland is certainly a UK issue and we need to deal with that in UK and do not need to ask for subsidies from the continent.
Apr 20, 2012, 6:49 am
#25
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 137
bmi personnel fooled by pension arrangement
It looks like there is something fishy going on between LH and the pension regulator... LH is making a one-off payment which implies getting rid of all further liabilities.
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/...ement-pensions
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/...ement-pensions
Apr 20, 2012, 10:10 am
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,167
And why is that?
Lack of strategy, lack of good management and clear direction, lack of revenue management, lack of investment, take your pick.
LH have done themselves a lot of damage with this one because the perception is that had they made a proper effort from day 1, things might have been a lot different.
Lack of strategy, lack of good management and clear direction, lack of revenue management, lack of investment, take your pick.
LH have done themselves a lot of damage with this one because the perception is that had they made a proper effort from day 1, things might have been a lot different.
Apr 20, 2012, 10:41 am
#27
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 5 miles from EMA
Programs: BD, BAEC Pleb, VS Pleb, Accor Pleb, HHonors Gold, Big White Season Pass
Posts: 5,904
Apr 20, 2012, 2:42 pm
#28
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: DUB - Ireland
Programs: EI-GCE, BD-G, BA-G, A3*G, TK*G, FB-G, HH-G, Hyatt-Dia
Posts: 8,527
Oh, seriously.
Thread closed for review. People are likely to disappear for a bit and most of the posts are too.
GoldCircle
Neither a child, nor a xenophobe
Thread closed for review. People are likely to disappear for a bit and most of the posts are too.
GoldCircle
Neither a child, nor a xenophobe