QF Engineers set to strike !

[Reggie]

Have a look at BBC NEWS | Business | No agreement over airport dispute for full report

Dave

Thanks fo the info Dave, I should be ok, I pass through HEathrow on the 13th and then on the 21st. However I have 2 collegues flying through on the 17th, their in for a shock:shock:

 

[Reggie]

By BAA workers:
07JAN from 0600 for 24 hours
14JAN from 0600 for 24 hours
17JAN from 0600 for 48 hours

They're striking over plans to axe pension plans for future employees.

Thanks QF009.

 

[JohnK]

They're striking over plans to axe pension plans for future employees.

If I didn't know you were serious I would be laughing loudly. What a lame excuse to strike....

 

[Dave Noble]

If I didn't know you were serious I would be laughing loudly. What a lame excuse to strike....

So to try to protect newly joining staff against a serious degrading of a pension scheme is lame ?

I doubt v much that the company was planning to make a large increase to base salaries of new staff to compensate them

Dave

 

[Platy]

If I didn't know you were serious I would be laughing loudly. What a lame excuse to strike....

Goodness me :shock: ...surely superannuation promotes:

1. financial self sufficiency after retirement for the employees concerned
2. national savings (and hence offset to burgoening debt)
3. pool of funds for nationally significant investment (eg. stocks and shares, etc)
4. less reliance on state financial support

So it all makes eminent economic sense both for the individual and nation as a whole.

Having said that, folk in the UK do pay national insurance at about 9% of salary to cover natonal health (Medicare equivalent) and a basic state pension.

Fortunately in this country ex-PM Paul Keating had the eminent sense to raise compulsory superannuation contributions (from 5% upwards in annual increments) as part of essential wage conditions (although Howard interfered once PM by raising TAX on contributions for high earners from 15% to 30%).

I would wager that most of us will be glad of our super once we get to the magic age.

I would also imagine that most would defend their super as part of their salary package with understandable vigor and determination. :-|

 

[Dave Noble]

Goodness me :shock: ...surely superannuation promotes:

1. financial self sufficiency after retirement for the employees concerned
2. national savings (and hence offset to burgoening debt)
3. pool of funds for nationally significant investment (eg. stocks and shares, etc)
4. less reliance on state financial support

So it all makes eminent economic sense both for the individual and nation as a whole.

Indeed. Thing is, at the moment they have a proper final salary pension scheme and the company is forcing new staff onto lesser investment schemes. Personally, I think that it is worth defending the access to a proper pension scheme to their members

Dave

 

[straitman]

So to try to protect newly joining staff against a serious degrading of a pension scheme is lame ?

I doubt v much that the company was planning to make a large increase to base salaries of new staff to compensate them

Dave

Thing is, at the moment they have a proper final salary pension scheme and the company is forcing new staff onto lesser investment schemes. Personally, I think that it is worth defending the access to a proper pension scheme to their members

Dave

I don't disagree at all however it would be good to have a FEW facts prior to all running off on tangents. A single one sided article based upon claims from a union that we know nothing about is as JohnK said, laughable.

 

[Platy]

I don't disagree at all however it would be good to have a FEW facts prior to all running off on tangents. A single one sided article based upon claims from a union that we know nothing about is as JohnK said, laughable.

Yes, you are right. I did read JohnK's post to mean that to strike over loss of super scheme is laughable. Perhaps that is not what he meant.

 

[Dave Noble]

I don't disagree at all however it would be good to have a FEW facts prior to all running off on tangents. A single one sided article based upon claims from a union that we know nothing about is as JohnK said, laughable.

The BBC news website is hardly a laughable repository of news and the same information is reported in The Guardian Passengers face disruption as BAA prepares for strike | Business | The Guardian which has a statement from BAA

BAA defended its decision to close the scheme to newcomers by saying the move would protect the company and pensioners from stock market volatility and the alternative money purchase schemes would provide more certainty over the level of company contributions.

so it would seem that the core reason is not disputed by BAA and I would not consider it to be "a lame excuse to strike...." which is what he said rather than saying that relying on 1 article was laughable. I would agree that relying on 1 article in isolation to form a full opinion can be flawed, but I do not see that being originally suggested, just that pensions for new staff was a laughable matter

Dave

 

[straitman]

The BBC news website is hardly a laughable repository of news and the same information is reported in The Guardian Passengers face disruption as BAA prepares for strike | Business | The Guardian which has a statement from BAA



so it would seem that the core reason is not disputed by BAA and I would not consider it to be "a lame excuse to strike...." which is what he said rather than saying that relying on 1 article was laughable

Dave

I agree and my comment was made based on the information presented which in my opinion was minimal, even if it was the BBC. These days I have only a little more faith in the BBC than other forms of journalism.

l deal with one sided claims from unions and others frequently enough so have learnt to be VERY sceptical until I see more information.

 

[Dave Noble]

l deal with one sided claims from unions and others frequently enough so have learnt to be VERY sceptical until I see more information.

Cool cool. It does seem to me from the Grauniad that BAA does not dispute that they are no longer allowing people to join their pension scheme

Dave

 

[straitman]

Cool cool. It does seem to me from the Grauniad that BAA does not dispute that they are no longer allowing people to join their pension scheme

Dave

Dave,

Good to see we finally agree on something. :shock:

 

[Reggie]

I thought I was on the wrong website, Straitman agreeing with Dave Noble, not once but twice i n the same thread. What is the world, or AFF coming to?

 

[Commuter]

Thanks fo the info Dave, I should be ok, I pass through HEathrow on the 13th and then on the 21st. However I have 2 collegues flying through on the 17th, their in for a shock:shock:

Oh dear. With 48 hr strike from 17th, and me happen to have booked a flight that arrives in LHR on 19th and another that flies out of LHR on 19th, I am doomed.

I just hope that they manage to sort something out. It's of a very serious consequence for me because I don't have much flexibility for this one. I'm thinking that I should perhaps re-route the whole thing through FRA.

(Based on what I have heard, I have more sympathy towards QF LAMEs/AMEs than BAA staff...)

 

[Reggie]

Oh dear. With 48 hr strike from 17th, and me happen to have booked a flight that arrives in LHR on 19th and another that flies out of LHR on 19th, I am doomed.

I just hope that they manage to sort something out. It's of a very serious consequence for me because I don't have much flexibility for this one. I'm thinking that I should perhaps re-route the whole thing through FRA.

(Based on what I have heard, I have more sympathy towards QF LAMEs/AMEs than BAA staff...)

I have had a chat with my collegue who is a former (are they ever former) pom, and he is of the belief that after the first strike, that the government will step in, if not then definitely after the 2nd strike. So he is not concerned.

Me however, I would try and reroute, or change dates, as I did with the 9th of January.

 

[Commuter]

Thanks Reggie. My Pom spouse (current Pom ) says it would probably be better re-routing for the safe side if possible (read: if it's not too expensive too reroute), although it's unlikely that the strike on the 17th will go ahead as you said.

I think I shall call Qantas tomorrow... the main issue is having to lose the BA ticket out of LHR (or change it at quite a cost) because I will have to fly Lufthansa out of FRA.

 

[Reggie]

the main issue is having to lose the BA ticket out of LHR (or change it at quite a cost) because I will have to fly Lufthansa out of FRA.

Not if the strike does go ahead, you should be able to apply for a refund, also it will be better than sitting at Heathrow for 2 days, or worse somewhere between home and there.

 

[straitman]

I thought I was on the wrong website, Straitman agreeing with Dave Noble, not once but twice i n the same thread. What is the world, or AFF coming to?

Just to see who's really paying attention :!:

 

[Commuter]

Quite true, Reggie. Then again if I do change my ticket I don't want to be hoping that the strike goes ahead so that I get the refund - I don't want to wish that on other travellers I might be mean but not THAT mean (yet).

Then again being stuck in a weird place doesn't really appeal to me either...

 

[Reggie]

Then again being stuck in a weird place doesn't really appeal to me either...

Being stuck in Sydney gives me nightmares as well.