RE: RE: RE: BA STaff5 Oct 2017 20:06
Hi Scandic
Unfortunately I don't agree with your premise that no one is at fault.
Whether the scheme is expensive to deliver or not, is not the issue.
The problem is, that the people who are tasked with delivering the product (in this case the pension) are unable to deliver it. So, either the product as conceived, was doomed to fail from the star,t because it was impossible to deliver. In which case questions have to be asked as to why so many large corporations, sold a failed product to their employees , OR the people overseeing delivery of the product, where incapable to delivering it because they lacked the capability.
IN the case of BA, they could of course have dealt with the problems in the scheme earlier, ion, which which would have cost them a lot less BUT their preferred option, which is the one they have taken, is to close the scheme and create a new one that provides lower returns to employees and lower cost to BA.
Those employees in their final 5 years who will have been working towards a good pension to retire on, will, undoubtedly be impacted the hardest.
If this was a business, this situation would not have been allowed to continue for as long, without the failed returns being dealt with.
In the interim, I have no doubt that people were being paid large sums of money to manage the pension.
I find it inexcusable , personally . The fact that so many companies have followed each other in closing final salary schemes , only goes to demonstrate how bad the product was in the first place. Of course, as I stated earlier, you don't hear the same situation when it comes to senior managers and Directors pensions, which use a different product..........guess that says it all.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
