Can I help you

Who cares what the public think it about causing as much disruption as possible.

jonas123

And you don't think the deficit is a problem? As a customer, I could argue that the vast amount of money BA is paying into NAPS is the reason it has not invested in its product over the past 5 years. So not only is it a big liability to its financial security, but also has held the company back and will do going forward. I'm sure mixed fleet cabin crew for example wouldn't be in support of this - it will certainly cause a divide between the younger and older members of the company.

But anyway I'm getting off-topic.

Can I help you

Why wouldn’t MF crew support it, their pension fund is also closing and the better the deal NAPS member get the better it is for BARP members?

JALlover

Fair point, but it's not guaranteed that vast amount of money BA invested into NAPS are going to be used for improvement in products. They might just consider it as part of their profit and split between the senior management, and still working on cutting the cost down i.e degrading the products rather than improving it.

As whether Mixed fleet going to support or not, there would definitely be a split between those that strike and those that didn't. The ones that strike saw and earned what they got they hard way, and they would see (and know) that the company would still find means to reduce their pay package and pensions in the future. So if Mixed fleet back them now, it would only make their life easier in the future.

Waterhorse

It's not a pilot centric issue - also that's a lovely comment, people are going to lose a huge proportion of what they were promised in retirement but that's okay because jonas123 thinks we should just move on and accept what the very well paid directors of a company making a 3 billion profit decide is good enough for us. Interesting. You'll forgive me if I really don't care what your I'll considered opinion and assumptions are.

NWIFlyer

This is an interesting point, but perhaps airlines come closer to a less distinct line between public and private service in the eyes of many because they have the power to affect lives. In that way, front line employees may well be seen in the same light as those in jobs as diverse as health, refuse collection, fire-fighting and policing because of that ability to affect plans such as family holidays.

Strikes generally have a better chance of succeeding when there is clear public support behind them, because that puts pressure on the employer to appear to be doing the right thing, thus maintaining their image as a company the public would want to deal with (albeit this is just a part of the mix).

However, I'm not sure how this would translate into sympathy for Mixed Fleet staff if they decided to take action over the pension changes. I'd generally say that most employed in the private sector would shrug their shoulders and think "it's the same for me, but I'm getting on with my life". Yet the last strike hardly produced any publicity that was detrimental to BA and wrought support for MF, but in the end they still got something.

Sub-contracting in of services to cover MF strikes was relatively expensive for BA, but they knew there was an end to it whenever they wanted to really negotiate. When it became more advantageous to settle, they settled. The costs of maintaining the existing pension arrangements for a long period make the MF expenditure look totally insignificant, so BA will fight much harder on this. The chances of emerging with a decent deal, particularly when realistically any career move won't suddenly produce a better outcome given the private sector has pretty much exclusively moved away from the legacy pension arrangements still in place at BA, are going to be much smaller. The strikes over pay were painful enough for MF - is it really going to be sustainable or tolerable to fight over something which is much more important to BA?

Mixbury

It is possible for different perspectives to be valid at the same time when viewed from their respective vantage points, expressing one isn't necessarily an attack or criticism on those with an alternative aspect. I'm sure most spectators here understand that this is different for those on the pitch, and don't deny the validity of your view point nor your right to act to protect your position. But there are other perspectives.

I find the most interesting aspect is that they are choosing to move on this; they must have a game plan, I wonder what it is...

jonas123

Were they promised it (contractually?) Over the past two years at least, BA paid out far money cash to cover the pension deficit than to shareholders. Doesn't feel that sustainable to me.

Can I help you

Perhaps they shouldn't have taken a payment holiday then?

Ancient Observer

Sorry, cihy, but the payment holiday was forced on them by Gordon Brown. No choice in the matter. What they were told then was the usual Govt BS about pensions.
No one outside the Civil Service thought it was a good idea. The Civil Service, of course, kept and still keep their Gold plated arrangements. Large Corporates did it as well as mid-size ones like BA.

As to "pension promises" most of the Private sector have broken them in the last few years. No one likes it.

UKtravelbear

You obviously have no idea about civil service pensions.

They are in no way shape or form 'gold plated' but it suits some to keep spouting that meme.

Benefits have been reduced and contributions increased over many years.

Ancient Observer

UKtravelbear,

I wish I was in the range of 50 to 65 in the SCS. They are not gold plated, they are solid gold. My last 2 corp jobs were a weak DC and a very large Nothing.

lukew

Not true; there was no coercion of companies to take contribution holidays.

gate4lounge

And what proportion of CS pensions are paid to those in the SCS? A very very low percentage. Maybe you had better stop reading the DM

Waterhorse

BA are on track to make a 21% operating margin. Seems reasonable to pay what you promised. Even if they did close it, the opportunistic valuation and cash grab of making it into a not final salary pension is sufficient to cause anger enough to warrant IA. Of course weasel wording of "were the promised it contractually" basically sums up all that is wrong with the modern business world. Management trying to screw employees while feathering their own nests. What justification for ANY business man to earn more that the PM? To argue they have more responsibility is self serving at best.