ATC IssuesA place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.
Real-time weather is available via the Met Office website, as are TAFs and METARs, satellite data and pressure forecasts. All the things ATCO's need. - And it's all free!
Arise Sir Paul, a Barron and a Knight (is this a 'first')??
Sorry, nearly forgot that 60s comedy act 'The Barron Knights'.
I'm not attempting to justify or defend any current or future project, just making the point that there is no pot of gold. The 'holiday' was approved by the fund trustees, and I think all of us can agree that they're impartial and not NATS ass kissing management lackeys, as they felt it was safe at the time. Hindsight is a great thing though.
I said it before when this subject came up over a year ago and I repeat it now. I find it presumptious of us to attempt to decide the pay and conditions for people who have not yet joined the company and who will be joining with their own eyes open. Provided sufficient guarantess can be given (and proven) that our pensions are ringfenced then newcomers should join on different terms.
Now I've got a busy week ahead and I'm out of here so its fairly pointless posting more attacks on me, I won't be back until the weekend.
Don't disagree with you on that, but the "guarantees "would most definitely have to be in writing and 110% legally airtight in order to avoid us having this conversation again in 10 years time. Is this something that the management would go for?
One other side of the coin (there are so many!) I dont reckon controllers will have public support. Not because they dont deserve it, but because of the following:
"Surely anyone can wave ping pong bats around?"
"Well I'm not flying from a NATS tower so I'm ok"
"They only need one in a tower - there must be one!"
I am at the tail end of the recruitment process, and these are things I have had said to me (or to that effect)
Most members of the public do not know the existence of "En-Route" - it is all tower.
The remaining members of the public think ATCO are the ground staff who direct the aircraft around... (surprisingly quite a lot of people).
The select few (usually people who have been through the process at some stage) know of differences between en route and tower, but think 1 or 2 people keep an eye on England, and there is 1 in each tower to make sure they get off to sunny Spain on time.
Unfortunately the lack of public understanding of the gravity of the situation, combined with the fact that you will ruin a LOT of holidays means that if a strike were to come around, you will not get support from the public.
Unfortunately, you are the people with a nice swooping radar, who were in Die Hard 2, Pushing Tin and in the 2 Aeroplane films... now why are you striking? - You are film stars!
...don't think public opinion really comes into this-they will be just as much against Barron and the board who have form on taking peoples' pensions and leaving them in the lurch as he did at Alstom
I'm afraid that you're living in even more of a fantasy world than some of the managers who posters here seem to enjoy maligning. It was one G. Brown MP who bugg***d-up the UK pensions industry by changing the tax regime, not the likes of Paul Barron or anyone else (although I'm not defending the short-termism concept of "contribution holidays", etc.)
Quote:
What's all this talk about not getting the public's sympathy??.......who gives a stuff......
Sadly, you've missed the point. It's irrelevant whether you or I or anyone else in NATS "gives a stuff" about public opinion. It's HMG that cares about it, and the plain truth is that at a time when the Government's rapidly losing control (not to mention its mind) the old political adage arises ~ cause a diversion and focus the public's gaze on something less sensitive.
Since we couldn't now muster enough military hardware or personnel to mount a parade in Whitehall, an old-fashioned military campaign's out of the question, so something closer to home would better suit.
Thus, if NATS operational staff take industrial action that causes disruption and inconvenience to thousands of travellers and pushes some of the weaker airlines over the brink, the tabloid press will catistigate us, the public will criticise us and the 49% Shareholder that just happens to be HMG, will shaft us. Don't forget also, the current lot in power is a supposedly worker-centric LABOUR lot; the alternative is the temporarily "touchy-feely" TORY lot: once back in power and sitting with a comfortable majority, they'll have even less sympathy for a highly-paid workforce like ours than Knackered Labour.
Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences...
Oh, and by the way, SRATCOH did not come about because of industrial action (please file in the library under "Fiction"...).
During the strike of the early eighties, many NATS units were in fact, already working a SRATCOH-compliant five-watch roster anyway, and SRATCOH came in purely for safety reasons, in 1989 following a two-year cross-industry review involving a Committee that included IPMS, GATCO, NATS, the CAA, the AOA, NALGO, the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine and the DTI to name but a few.
Whether public support is necessary maybe a moot point, however, the good ol' press are unlikely to support us. The press in this country carry a lot of weight when it comes to painting a picture of good or evil. I feel we will certainly fall on the later in their eyes. This is not to say that a stance should not be taken. More of a realization that strikes often work best when you are not vilified by all and sundry.
Not forgetting NATS was still troubled by the drop in revenue from 9/11, which had triggered additional loans of some £60 million. It seems to me (obvious ass kissing management lackey that I am ) that NATS behaved like any business would in similar circumstances, it tightened its belt. Just as it is now with the economic downturn looming and recruitment of paper shuffling office workers curtailed and contractors let go.
That's all very well but when is the company ever going to 'loosen it's belt"?
bad times = sorry boys but we've got to cut costs.
good times = look at all the profits we've made.
Location: Where the singing aardvarks told me I should be but when they stop singing I'm gonna escape
Posts: 1,080
I doubt the shareholders will be on our side, and that includes HMG.
A relative of mine worked for a company set up in Belfast (and Dublin) in the 70s as a joint venture between HMG, the ROI govt and a well known chemical company. Six or seven years ago, he was a couple of months off retirement after 30 0dd years service, when the company was wound up as was the pension scheme, and here's the rub, the ROI govt guaranteed the pension for it's nationals, the chemical company walked away saying that the local company went bust and couldn't pay out on pensions, then the bombshell, HMG turned it's back on the pensioners as well saying it wasn't their problem.
Let's not rely on them doing anything, they have form despite certain guarantees having been given to former nationalised industries on the pensions issue.
The Tanker drivers did indeed get a 14% rise, however I don't recall the country being held to ransom or any real disruption to my daily life. The press on the other hand certainly took the union leader to task.
I find it presumptious of us to attempt to decide the pay and conditions for people who have not yet joined the company and who will be joining with their own eyes open. Provided sufficient guarantess can be given (and proven) that our pensions are ringfenced then newcomers should join on different terms.
A pension is a long term investment and has to see through both good times and bad. A good company should make provision to pay what is due through thick and thin.
The UK is not in good shape now but 5,10,20,50 years it will be a different story (one way or another).
If 'newcomers' join a new scheme then funding to our scheme effectively reduces from the day it is 'voted' in... As time goes by more staff retire so the scheme has more liabilities. The level of funding into the scheme is in ever decreasing circles. In 20 years time most of the current staff have retired but there are still some people paying into the 'old' scheme. There is no surplus - in fact there is no money left in the scheme whatsoever as some shortsighted staff voted the 'old' scheme out. 'Newcomers' are ok as they are funding the 'new' scheme.
Tell me -BDiONU - where exactly does the money come from to pay for your younger colleagues pension - maybe you helped to vote the scheme out but if there is no money the pensions cannot be paid. FORTY years of loyal service do receive c*ck all back.....
A healthy pension scheme must always have money coming into it -
example - every member of your family pays money into a bank account each month to pay for medicine for older family members. Each month the interest and a small % of the capital is taken out to pay for said medication. A family argument errupts and people stop paying into the account. Medication still must be paid for but each month the interest and an increasing % of the capital is removed. At some stage the medicine will cost more than is in the account. How does your elderly relative get his medication? The younger members don't care as they have their own problems????
To change the funding of OUR scheme will impact on your colleagues in a big way.
The scheme is still in surplus yet the company has taken payment holidays and I believe they do not pay the maximum in each month. They should be delighted that they are part of such a well run scheme. We are not staring into a big black hole - pay back what was saved during 'holiday' season (+ interest), pay in what should be paid. (They can afford it as management do like to brag about how much money our 'not for profit' making company makes each year.
Stop paying shareholders such big dividends and look after your staff. They are the single most important asset you have.
My single most important asset is my future pension and I will not allow that to be taken from me.
Surley its up to the union to ensure the facts are made known to both the press and public...the facts being that Mr Barron has recently had a 13% payrise, will be on for an even bigger bonus as reward for destroying our penison...oh, and dont forget the Aston Martin.
Posters here on PPRuNe discuss such issues as to whether we would or would not have public sympathy and other esoteric and philosophical issues. I would encourage everyone to visit the CAAPS website and look at your personal details in which it shows not only how much you would get in retirement but also how much money you have in your pension pot. I have served 30 years in the CAA and Nats and my personal "pot" is worth nearly TWICE the current value of my home. These are the amounts of money we are trying to defend from theft by mr barron and his "yes men" in the management and government.
We spoke to one employee named DC10RealMan who stated "I don't give a damn what the public think about us or whether it is fair, my pension has wads of cash in it so its important I don't lose any. If that means that a nurse who has saved up her money for 3 years to afford a holiday spending it on the floor of Gatwick then so be it"
I'm not saying that your cause (I am not NATS) is not fair, justifiable or anything, but that is how the media will portray comments like the one you made up there. Yes I am being harsh but the media don't always behave in a pink and fluffy way either
There was no petrol or diesel to be had in London or the South East. I can't recalled the Union Leader getting vilified by the Press but I imagine his members (the ones who pay his wages) were very grateful for his backbone.
Linear Mode
