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.
Boys and girls it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.
The union sold the redundancy terms to you all for £750 or there abouts.
Think about how this works with the next line below!
NSL with reduced liabilities will become a far more attractive item to sell on to a new owner, after a few years or so new owner finds current T & C's for members un sustainable and closes scheme to everyone this will happen, it goes on out there every day watch the papers and other companies. FFS stop this two tier pension fiasco when you get the ballot paper.
X in the NO box Gov will not let us go bust, if they fekin underwrite Northern Rock they can underwrite my feckin pension and future ATCO's pensions too. Thier pension is bullet proof WTF is that about s.
I for one have been in long enough for it prob not to affect me, but I am prepared to fight for ATCO's future pensions.
One Nats One Pension my ARSE you know who you are
NATS can't go bust, there are clauses in the transport bill to make sure it can't. If NATS is unable to pay its bills the courts are required to make an "Air Traffic Administration Order" (apologies for incorrectly calling it Aviation Administration above). This would effectively nationalise NATS at no cost to the Government. The Railway privitisation legislation contained similar clauses which were used to bring Railtrack back into public ownership.
That may seem an attractive proposition to some but do we really understand what that means to NATS staff particularly those not directly involved in the NERL Licence ? You may not like the current management but they have some vested interest in the future of NATS and hopefully in the last few years they've learnt a bit about the company. Do you really think an accountant appointed by the Secretary of State will be better ? Our pension curently enjoys some protection afforded to it by agreements made during the privitisation process, what status do those agreements have if an Air Traffic Administration Order is raised ?
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] NATS Trade Union Side[/font][FONT='Times New Roman','serif']
To:All NTUS Members7 March 2006
Dear Colleague
NATS PENSIONS SCHEME - UNIONS MEET MANAGEMENT
Firstly, thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to the circular dated February 2006. Your comments were most welcome and show the depth of feeling amongst members in support of defending the existing pension scheme arrangements.
As promised this is an update following a meeting between the NTUS and Senior NATS Management which took place on Thursday 2nd March.
At the meeting, Paul Barron and senior colleagues stated the following:
NATS intention is to safeguard the pensions of all our existing pension members. Existing NATS scheme members will remain in CAAPS and continue to accrue benefits on the current basis.
The Trust Deed and Rules and/or the "Trust of a Promise" protect current scheme members. This is through: a) The "no decrement" principle of CAAPS and b) the HMG "Trust of a Promise" for scheme members at the time of the PPP on 26 July 2001.
By Control Period 3 (CP3) there will be unsustainable pressure from NATS customers and the Regulator because this represents an open ended and volatile cost.
Most of the Defined Benefit "Final Salary" schemes of NATS customers have already closed.
In addition Management indicated that they had a number of concerns regarding future liabilities:
The cost of providing Defined Benefit Pensions has increased.
The ability to recover tax paid on dividend payments has been removed.
Members and dependents are living longer.
Stock Markets are down in relation to 2000 level.
Fall in Long-term Government Bond yields at lowest since 1950's.
Funding level has dropped from 144% March 2001 to 119% at December 03.
Pensions cash pass-through for CP2 only applies to NERL. (This has no implication for staff in NSL other than NATS having to pick up the cost as all staff are employed by NATS).
The cost of providing £1p.a. of pension has been increasing.
Paul Barron also stated that "doing nothing" was not an option and he invited the NTUS to work together with Management between now and 2008 to identify the choices we may have going forward. He also offered to investigate whether the next scheme tri-ennial review due on 31 December 2006 could be brought forward.
In relation to a possible new scheme for future employees NATS indicated:
Only new employees will join any new scheme, under which they would contribute at a level that is more in line with the TUC's recommended 2:1 employer/employee funding ratio. New employees would have choices from Defined Benefit through to Defined Contribution Options at appropriate employee contribution rates.
The target date for a new scheme would be April 2008.
In response the NTUS stated the following:
Welcomed the fact that Management recognised the strength of feeling amongst the membership on the matter of pensions and re-stated that we have a clear mandate to oppose any changes to the existing arrangements including the setting up of a two tier scheme for new employees.
Didn't wish the tri-ennial review to be brought forward as we have complete faith in the Scheme Trustees and Scheme Actuary who administer the scheme on a day to day basis. If at any time they identify the need to consider the existing or future viability of the scheme we would be the first to indicate our desire to have a dialogue through the existing arrangement which is the NATS Joint Pensions Committee.
Regarding the pressure being applied by the customers on the Regulator we requested that NATS arrange for representatives of the NTUS to meet with the British Airways CEO when he attends a NATS function on 8th March. NATS did not feel that it would be appropriate for a customer to debate an internal issue and declined the request.
The NTUS also finds it somewhat ironic that the Regulator is also a part of CAAPS albeit the CAA Section.
The NTUS will continue to campaign with members to oppose any changes to the current arrangements and any proposals to set up an alternative scheme for new employees.
Two further points:
Management intend to set up a Question & Answer process on Pensions. The NTUS agreed to input comments.
Paul Barron and colleagues will be conducting Road Shows around NATS within the next few weeks and they intend to raise the issue of Pensions. The NTUS welcomes this opportunity for members to be directly involved in the debate and therefore asks as many as possible of you to ensure that you attend a session at your unit.
Finally, we see this campaign to defend our pension scheme as being a marathon rather than a sprint. With that in mind the NTUS have set up a small working group to draw up a campaign strategy and should the need arise we will be calling for your support. In the meantime, as before, your comments and ideas on campaign activities would be most welcomed.
ONE NATS - ONE PENSION SCHEME
Yours sincerely
Alastair Nicolson
Alastair Nicolson
Trade Union Co-ordinator[/font]
Last edited by Air.Farce.1 : 27th September 2008 at 17:01.
Since much of the information has been kept from the public eye due to confidentiality agreements only a few individuals have been privy to the full details. It seems these people have had there minds changed (remember one nats one pension??) and their opinions are set to shape future union policy. My concern is that many union members will go along with whatever is recommended by their union (which after all is supposed to have members best interests at heart.)
Given what has happened, some would say a complete u-turn, how the hell are the rest of us supposed to make an informed decision if we are not privy to the same information that those who negotiated the deal have been?
I wouldn't buy any other financial package without doing my homework, so why should I do so with this issue?
Just did sum quick sums, if you expect an average annual pay increase of RPI + 2% which I don't think is unreasonable. And a current salary of 50k and RPI average of 3%
After 10 years
Final salary £81,000 Final pensionable salary £70,000
20 Years
Final salary £130,000 Final pensionable salary £99,000
30 Years
Final salary £210,000 Final pensionable salary £140,000
40 years
Final salary £350,000 Final pensionable salary £190,000
As I said quick sums so might not be totally correct but close enough I think that’s a F@@king massive difference.
Existing NATS scheme members will remain in CAAPS and continue to accrue benefits on the current basis.
Surely capping at RPI + 0.5% is a change to our current basis??
Quote:
In relation to a possible new scheme for future employees NATS indicated:
Only new employees will join any new scheme, under which they would contribute at a level that is more in line with the TUC's recommended 2:1 employer/employee funding ratio. New employees would have choices from Defined Benefit through to Defined Contribution Options at appropriate employee contribution rates.
The target date for a new scheme would be April 2008.
So he's achieved what he set out to achieve back in 2006 AND we've let him cut our own pensions.
I ask again WTF happened in those negotiations?
PLEASE make sure everyone at your units sees the (rough) figures bross_al posted. Even if they are rough ones it still makes scary reading.
Just did sum quick sums, if you expect an average annual pay increase of RPI + 2% which I don't think is unreasonable. And a current salary of 50k and RPI average of 3%
After 10 years
Final salary £81,000 Final pensionable salary £70,000
20 Years
Final salary £130,000 Final pensionable salary £99,000
30 Years
Final salary £210,000 Final pensionable salary £140,000
40 years
Final salary £350,000 Final pensionable salary £190,000
As I said quick sums so might not be totally correct but close enough I think that’s a F@@king massive difference.
Forget about actual salary figures as they are meaningless, we never really know what our final salary is until the day we retire . However taking your figure of an average salary increase of RPI + 2%, buy my calculations this would mean anyone who had maximum years in the scheme would actually end up with a pension of 40% of their final salary rather than the 66% you would get retiring if you are able to retire now.
To get a perspective on what the current pension proposals might mean to you in the future, consider where you would stand today if these proposals had been introduced during the last recession, 18 years ago, in 1990.
£29888 - maximum ATCO2 pensionable salary in 1990
£73777 – maximum ATCO2 pensionable salary in 2008 (a rise of 147%)
79% - The amount RPI rose between 1990 and 2008
96% - The amount RPI+0.5% rose between 1990 and 2008
£58580 – The amount of pensionable salary you would have today if pensionable salary had been restricted to RPI+0.5% (as is proposed under the pension restructure)
£15197 – The reduction of your pensionable salary from what your contract of employment said when you joined and what you would get now.
£49184 – Your projected pension in 2008 based on your terms and conditions in 1990 and retiring on 2/3rds annual salary
£39053 – Your actual pension after pegged to RPI+0.5%
£10131 – Your annual loss of pension based on 2/3rds final pensionable salary
20.6% - The percentage cut in your pension due to RPI+0.5% peg
£844 – The monthly amount (at todays prices) that you would lose on your future pension.
All figures are projected and based on published NATS salary scales and published Government RPI figures. Correct as of September 2008.
Feel free to adapt the salary figures for your own trade/branch, apply the RPI %ages and circulate round your own units.
Since a joint statement has been released by NATS/NTUS there doesn't seem to be anyone representing an opposing point of view. As far as I was aware Prospects standpoint was one nats one pension and to resist any worsening of the terms of our pensions. When did the members give their permission for this policy to change?? The charm offensive is well underway with briefings at units / hotels in Southampton etc in the pipeline. With the unions blessing and no opposing voice I fear we may sign up to the memorandum of understanding and sell our pensions down the river. Does anyone know if it would be possible to propose a motion at prospect conference to request that the union doesn't recommend that members accept the changes?? The general feeling seems to be that the union is no longer representing member’s views or best interests. I’m starting to wonder why I’m paying fees to the union just so they can do managements dirty work to ensure our not for profit organisation makes a healthy return and may be easier to sell.
since we let them have a payment holiday with guarantees of "this wouldnt happen", management within nats have been as i hear too busy to deal with the pension problem. Funnily enough Mr Baron and Co. have no problem providing time when share prices plummeted so as to enable them to provide the doom and gloom over our pension. This should have been sorted out earlier is our money for our union wasted?
We have been a profitable company in the past few years how much of this is down to us letting them reduce pension payments or no contributions at all for three years?
I am sorry but for me its a no vote to the pension changes but we need a majority and i am not sure who i trust on counting votes. After our union's last vote was for one pension mandated by us (the people who pay for them) what the hell are they doing.
I am willing to give up a days pay or more and even chance the company going bust and losing my job. Its all wrong we are being beaten down bit by bit, if we let this go ahead what happens at the next pension review? and the next and so on, eventually us dumb idiot frontline staff will have to pay for the privilege of doing our jobs i didnt get into this job with all that tedious training and have all this responsibility to live worse off than some other less difficult jobs pension when and if i reach 60 probably 70 when i get there
p.s. no need to go as far as middle east eurocontrol do a pension equal to ours with international private medical care for life thrown in if our pension changes i am sure i can swap a bit of ale for bagguettes and boulangeries, schnitzels or belgian beer !
p.s. whats the rule on getting a new union? one with a set of (if you read the humour page) FAST EAGLES???
Does anyone know if it would be possible to propose a motion at prospect conference to request that the union doesn't recommend that members accept the changes??
There was a petition for special conference doing the rounds at MACC and ScOACC that basically went along the lines of the negotiating team is not to agree to anything on the pension front without first consulting the membership.
I fear that this is too late.
Regardless of the outcome some serious questions need to be asked of the BEC.
As a watch union rep I'm embarrassed and angry - I'll be fighting this all the way.
Last edited by Stupendous Man : 28th September 2008 at 09:46.
If this proposal is accepted by us we might aswell not bother with any further negotiations for anything and just get on with life. this is the biggest shafting nats employees have faced. they have taken this glitch in the global economy to shaft us good and proper. In 5 years time when everything is rosy again and we ar ein a boom period they will not revert to old terms and conditions will they? of course not. because it wont even be mentioned by management.
its all very well saying things will improve in the financial markets given time. which they will. but it will all be a bit late if Nats has gone bust and our pension scheme wound up. and be under no illusion, any new buyer or government bail out will not honour our pension rights. If nats goes bust so will our pensions. allegedly the only thing that stopped that happening after 9/11 was the pensions holiday which would be better thought of as our pension scheme saving the company to save itself. It is a very emotive subject which we hopefully will hear more details on over the cominmg weeks. I think that if our union thinks it is unsustainable and our trustees are effectively saying the same then maybe we do need to be realistic about things , difficult though that is.
Last edited by ifaxu : 28th September 2008 at 18:40.
Reason: spelling due hangover!
s.
Some Pension Numbers To Consider
Linear Mode
