Aer Lingus pension

OnTheCounter

It has been reported over the summer that Aer Lingus has serious problems with their pension scheme.

It turns out there is a e748m deficate which means that someone retiring now would only get 4% of their expected pension.

Considering how ridiculously small that percentage is who is to blame and should they be held accountable?

Recession or not there is no excuse to be short 96%.

Would you pay into a company pension scheme?

Chucken

OnTheCounter wrote: »

It has been reported over the summer that Aer Lingus has serious problems with their pension scheme.

It turns out there is a e748m deficate which means that someone retiring now would only get 4% of their expected pension.

Considering how ridiculously small that percentage is who is to blame and should they be held accountable?

Recession or not there is no excuse to be short 96%.

Would you pay into a company pension scheme?

Thats a lot of.....












money

girl2

So tempted……

donvito99

I thought it was an Aer Lingus/Aer Rianta/SR Technics (perhaps) pension. So to lump all this on Aer Lingus is unfair.

hardCopy

Defined Benefit Pension in Unsustainable Deficit Shock!

Fr_Dougal

OnTheCounter wrote: »

It turns out there is a e748m deficate which means that someone retiring now would only get 4% of their expected pension.

Would you pay into a company pension scheme?

No, what's needed is a sound faecal policy.

Mahou

What are the chances of it being passed on to the tax payer. Or like the way car insurance policies all include a premium for Quinns illegal activities.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

No, what's needed is a sound faecal policy.

The government have an abundance of them, they should sell Aer fungus some of them.

B.A._Baracus

It's bad alright.
You pay into a pension for years and years and suddenly they turn around to you and say you're only getting 4% :rolleyes:

Where the other 96% go?!

Victor

OnTheCounter wrote: »

It turns out there is a e748m deficate which means that someone retiring now would only get 4% of their expected pension.

Gossip, that completely misinterprets the reality.

Mahou wrote: »

What are the chances of it being passed on to the tax payer.

Not a lot. First off, the pension fund is liable, then the companies are liable. Aer Lingus is sitting on over €500 million in cash and DAA own three airports and lots of other things.

As Aer Lingus is a plc, that the government only has a 20% share of, the government isn't liable for them.

DAA is also a plc, 100% owned by the government. but being a limited company, the government has limited responsibilities.

Wacker The Attacker

OnTheCounter wrote: »

It has been reported over the summer that Aer Lingus has serious problems with their pension scheme.

It turns out there is a e748m deficate which means that someone retiring now would only get 4% of their expected pension.

Considering how ridiculously small that percentage is who is to blame and should they be held accountable?

Recession or not there is no excuse to be short 96%.

Would you pay into a company pension scheme?

Thats an expensive dump

girl2

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Thats an expensive dump

Yes - at last.

Wacker The Attacker

girl2 wrote: »

Yes - at last.

Neither the first nor the last reference

Enright

didnt members of that pension fund purchase aerlingus shares to prevent ryanair getting them? I suspect thats where some of the money is gone

squod

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Where the other 96% go?!

wow, eh well. You may have missed some of the news over the last four years.

Around 80% of defined benefit pension schemes are currently in deficit and will not be able to pay benefits without taking remedial action, according to The Pensions Board.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0607/80-of-defined-benefit-pensions-in-deficit.html

To date we have sunk €63bn into the banks, comprising €32bn in cash from the National Pension Reserve Fund, from our tax receipts and from our first bailout and €31bn in promissory notes

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/why-it-is-correct-to-refer-to-the-fiscal-compact-as-the-bank-debt-treaty/

B.A._Baracus

squod wrote: »

wow

wow yourself baby. :P

OnTheCounter

The light just came on with this thread.

Firstly I now am sure of the spelling of deficit, thanks.

Secondly instead of coming in to after hours to see what the craic is that day and leaving everytime thinking "nasty little fcukwits" I just wont stop by. Not at all throwing the toys out of the pram, just the straw that broke the camels back so to speak so thanks again.

Good Luck.

girl2

OnTheCounter wrote: »

The light just came on with this thread.

Firstly I now am sure of the spelling of deficit, thanks.

Secondly instead of coming in to after hours to see what the craic is that day and leaving everytime thinking "nasty little fcukwits" I just wont stop by. Not at all throwing the toys out of the pram, just the straw that broke the camels back so to speak so thanks again.

Good Luck.

Ah c'mon now…don't be like that…it's all just a bit of craic. And always at someone's expense, but not no malice meant.

Sorry if I've said anything to upset you (I'm not usually sarcastic enough for it to be effective).

Don't go away….…

Victor

Enright wrote: »

didnt members of that pension fund purchase aerlingus shares to prevent ryanair getting them? I suspect thats where some of the money is gone

Nothing to do with the pension fund - it would have been the employees directly or in a group, but not the pension fund. It is severely frowned upon for pension funds to have more than about 5% invested in the employer - if the employer goes bust, the staff would be out of a job and a pension.

King Of Wishful Thinking

OnTheCounter wrote: »

who is to blame and should they be held accountable?

Victor outlined the facts on who owns just what pretty well, as for who's to blame and should the be held accountable:

Osama Bin Laden, Willie Walsh, the Unions, Bertie Ahern and Co..

Take your pick of just who should have the lion share of blame, but personally, I would have preferred to have seen Willie Walsh shot in Pakistan myself.

In 2001 Aer Lingus made almost a €150m profit (would have been close to €250 but for 9/11) and yet in 2004, they barely broke even. Unions had a big part in the downfall also but Ahern & Co should never have privatised the company. It was a national Airline and should have been kept as such, not sold off to the highest bidder and floated allowing O'Leary to play a game of Monopoly with it. Don't waste your time telling me why you disagree, I have sat through hundreds of hours worth of meetings and heard so called experts tell us just why it was the best thing also (not that they were biased at all mind, management profit from flotation and privatisation is just a natural byproduct and wouldn't be a motivating factor at all at all).

However, even so - I'd still rather fly with Aer Lingus than give Thrift Airways my money. Some of us out here do still do know the value of certain things, over and above that of a cheap deal. I've been hit by the rescission in a serious bloody way, but first and foremost, whenever a deal means I have to bend over and take it up the jacksy, then to me it's no deal at all. Seeking value is one thing, being waylaid by the lowest price, no matter the cost, is quite another and yes I have have paid 12% - 20% more for a flight with Aer Lingus than had I went no frills but I feel the true deal is that I got a 50% - 100% better flight experience by doing so and that's why, anytime I can help it, my airline of choice will still be, Aer Lingus.