AJLondon

Perhaps you would care to elaborate where you think the post is incorrect or disingenous...

The Saint

I don't think anything is incorrect. I find it mildly disingenuous to find a pilot lecturing the cabin crew on this topic. Pilots are not averse, as I recall, to threatening a bit of industrial unrest to protect their pay and working conditions.

AJLondon

My original commendation of the post in question was based purely on the validity of the argument made, rather than taking into account the profession of the poster.

DYKWIA

Wasn't it Panic Stations that said, "If they touch my pension, I strike"? Or was that another pilot?

Cheers,
Rick

BahrainLad

It depends what you constitute as "threat" I suppose. When was the last time BALPA actually balloted for IA?

It would seem, contrary to Cabin Crew's protestations, that BALPA have done for the pilot's pension exactly what they should have done: achieved a negotiated settlement without foot-stamping, histrionics and prepubescent cries of "it's just not FAIR!!!!"

The Saint

Absolutely. We are agreed about the lucidity and cogency of the post. I was looking at the wider perspective.

The Saint

Best to do some checks before making some of your sweeping statements.

Last time BALPA threatened BA with strike action - Nov 2006.
Last time BALPA balloted for strike action - July 2006 (with bmi).

ian001

BALPA has itself engaged in sabre-rattling, as evidenced in this story from February 2006.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4697766.stm

BahrainLad

OK, let's bring bmi into it. That'll help.

If we are being pedantic...

It depends what you constitute as "threat" I suppose. When was the last time BALPA actually balloted for IA at BA?

BAAZ

Whether someone actually retires or not at 55 is not really BA's concern; it's the pension BA has to pay them that is more of an issue.

Pension rights in this sort of scheme are acquired, or earned, over someone's service. So if you joined at 25 and are now 40, and currently have a normal retirement age of 55, then you have the contractual right to half of your promised pension (based on whatever formula it's calculated on) at age 55. Future service rights, i.e. the rights you have yet to earn between (in this case) 40 and 55, can quite legally be varied, in the same way that other benefits can be varied, and in fact most pension plans specifically contain a clause allowing the benefits to be varied for future service.

Then, these contractual rights can sometimes be varied by negotiation, or for example if there really isn't enough money to pay for them (or if by paying them, other pension scheme members suffer as a result).

So I understand the current proposal being offered is
- to continue to allow the people concerned to retire at 55, but to ask them to pay more for their future service rights, keeping the past service rights unchanged (a sort of "limited buyout"?), or
- instead of asking them to pay more, asking them to work longer instead, and
- presumably offering a different deal to new employees (as you suggest).

The Saint

Gosh, sorry, there was I thinking there was only one BALPA, your point being that it was a nice reasonable union that didn't engage in such tactics. Now I realise, as expediency dictates, that you are referring to two different BALPAs. There's the BALPA (bmi division) which is run by trots threatening all sorts of industrial action to get the company to accept its demands, and then there's BALPA (BA division) which has an entirely different and more concilliatory approach and not at all prone to pre-pubescent rants.

Oh, and by doing a quick Google search, I discover the BALPA held the gun to BA's head in 1996. Can't be bothered to check any further. I think one example suffices.

nyjoe4

Sadly, most people DON'T have a choice, particularly when it comes to keeping a job, family and a home. They keep the job so they can keep the others. Career changes are expensive and complex.

And that's the problem for us. BA does have excellent staff; my guess is that they'll strike, lose some of the battle, and we'll end up with those cheery American-style crews who, after losing pay and benefits year on year, really don't care about the passengers at all.

Few crew will quit when such changes are made, because they do have bills to pay. They're just going to resent being there. And management will hold onto them precisely because they're less expensive to keep than recruiting new ones. Just like CO, AA, and others.

Really, the only ones that suffer when the crews are unhappy and miserable are the passengers. I hope that - if the crew don't win this fight - the people on this board remember why the crews are angry.

oldone

The solution to this dispute can, and should, be found at the negotiating table

BahrainLad

Gosh...so you are saying that pilots at bmi should have identical industrial relations with their employer as their counterparts in BA just because they're members of the same union? Oh dear.

I wonder if you can find another example of two groups who have wildly difference approaches to IR. Oh, wait...BASSA and CC89! And they're even in the same company. Bingo!

If we're agreed that striking is an unsuccessful outcome of industrial negotiation then BASSA are very close to proving their worth...

TMC

Not bad is it - I've managed zero in 20 years so far - if I feel unwell it seems to coincide with the flight home or a weekend!

So with the first strike day cancelled, is there likely to be enough movement on cancelling the rest? (I want to cancel my Turkish Airlines booking for non-strike days that ba.com won't let me book!)