Payrise thoughts (NATS)

[Co ordination unaffected]

So, Mr Everett, you haven't got any money for a proper payrise?

What about all those pension contributions?

[tug3]

Lets face it - if NATS were as skint as some would have us believe, wouldn't the CAA have fallen over itself to let it increase its charges? The fact that it didn't speaks volumes to many of us.

Are we now working for a company whose sole responsibility is to manage its debts and thus keep the banks sweet - after all, who knocked the majority of the voluntary redundancies on the head? The Banks?

Is it the case that while the debt belongs to NATS/TAG, any cash raised in the form of revenue belongs to the banks? Do they hold the view that it's their dosh and it'll be they who tell management what they can and can't do with it? Could this be the case particularly when it comes to such things as pension contributions, expensive voluntary redundancy packages and, not forgetting the current fly in the ointment, salary increases?

Of course there is money, didn't the CAA almost say as much with regard to savings already made, but is it the Airline Group's financial backers who are calling all the shots?

Are TAG management are simply the mouth pieces of the guys in the suits who dish out the lolly - or not as the case may be?

Welcome to the world of public private partnerships where the small print probably reads - "those who lend are also fully entitled to call all the shots".

Rgds
T3

[OrsonCart]

Tug 3, well done, I totally agree!

[WetFeet]

Don't forget the major share owner - HM Government. They made millions from the sale but as major share holder (golden share etc) still own us. Yes, they handed control over to TAG, but they still own us! Don't see much in the way of cash injections from them to help NATS out.