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.
I am not sure you can draw any analogies between NATS and B&B pensions and Nationalisation.
NATS is perhaps unique in as much as it is only part privatised and the pension is the CAA pension scheme.
I stand to be corrected though
To quote the Royal Aeronautical Society's evidence to the Commons transport sub-committee last year: `Safety must always be paramount but low morale amongst controllers, for whatever reasons, is in itself a flight safety hazard.' ''
There is a lot of sense in this, lets face it, however professional an individual is when their Pension is at risk it gives cause for concern when morale is low
Yearly pre-tax profits:
July 2005 - £68.8 million
June 2006 - £80.3 million
June 2007 - £94.4 million
June 2008 - £66.7 million (reduced due to cost of closing West Drayton, staff relocation and redeeming shareholder loans)
Dividends to shareholders
2005 - £5 million
2006 - £2.5 million
2007 - nothing declared
2007/08 - interim dividend £2.5 million
Costs of staff relocation to Swanwick and redundancies from restructuring (2008) - £23 million
Pension scheme costs (2008) £54.8 million
So.... The cost of the Swanwick more than 40% of the total cost of the pension scheme in 2007/08.
If the company can absorb these restructuring costs yet still turn a good profit then surely they can afford to pay more into their staffs pension scheme now the Swanwick move is complete???
Impressive figures for a company who do not wish to reward loyalty through a final salary pension scheme.
The above info is useful, also can anyone confirm NATS lost £120,000,000 when the Spanish deal fell through? Presumably NATS was accountable/responsible for this, and are we confident such incompetence won't happen again? This was all hushed up of course and needs explored further. If I remember NATS and The Spanish fell out over the future revenvue which would be generated by this joint venture, unfortunately NATS was tied into a legal contract which left them exposed, and the £120,000,000 was compensation
The U.K.'s National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and Spain's Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA) have agreed to jointly develop what they describe as "the air traffic management system of the future."
The two air navigation service providers (ANSPs) say they will set up a commercial joint venture company to develop the Spanish SACTA (Sistema Automatizado de Control Transito Aéreo) ATC system to manage the airspace of Spain and Britain.
This is the first time that two ANSPs have collaborated in such a commercial venture, anywhere in the world.
The new-generation SACTA system will be introduced first in Gran Canaria and the Spanish peninsula in 2007; it will move into NATS' new Prestwick centre in 2009, and then into the Swanwick centre in 2012.
A memorandum defining the deal's basic structure has been signed by Paul Barron and Francisco Quereda, the respective chief executives of NATS and AENA, and the necessary contracts should be in place in the autumn.
While the Spanish SACTA system will be used as the venture's basic ATM technology, it appears that NATS will lead the effort. "We are committed to a common system as the platform for our two-centre strategy in the UK," said Mr. Barron. "Our vision, though, is for NATS to be at the heart of a collaborative venture driving change in Europe.
"Both AENA and NATS will gain from this venture to develop the SACTA system, Mr. Barron added. "NATS' brings our unique experience of managing complex airspace and large volumes of traffic, whilst AENA brings experience, and a system which has proved itself in service over the past 15 years."
Mr. Quereda said: "This is a truly ground-breaking move and we and NATS look forward to taking SACTA forward together for the future," and noted, "SACTA is flexible and adaptable and we have developed it with great care to ensure it meets operational demands whilst remaining simple to maintain. We are delighted to have attracted NATS' expertise to join us in developing the next generation system and have already established a good partnership with them."
The two companies started working together almost two years ago to evaluate SACTA's adaptability for use in the complex airspace over the UK. Definition and specification work has been under way for over a year.
NATS and AENA are also working with Germany's air traffic service provider, DFS (Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH) to evaluate options for the next-generation of flight data processing systems. 08-04-2005
Last edited by Air.Farce.1 : 5th October 2008 at 10:52.
If anyone has ever watched Working Lunch on BBC 2, then they might have seen a chap from The Pensions Advisory Service. He really knew his stuff, so I had a look at their website:
Section 262 of the Pensions Act 2004 outlines the requirements if changes are made to an occupational pension scheme. Under these requirements, if changes are made which affect a member's or their survivors' 'subsisting rights' the member's consent must first be obtained or the trustees must ensure that:
- a written explanation has been given to the member and opportunity allowed for them to make representations;
- satisfied themselves that the actuarial value of the member's benefits will be the same, or greater, as their subsisting rights before the change;
- they have obtained a statement from the scheme actuary certifying the actuarial value of the benefits has been maintained.
(Subsisting rights, means any right to future benefits that has already been built up and any entitlement to a pension in payment.)
This basically means that if we don't agree to any changes the company wants to make to our pension, then there is nothing they can do to it that would make it worse. So just say no....!
TPAS is a very good free service, and they know their stuff, so I'm going to forward them a lot of info (that's already available on the internet) and see what they say.
Someone else has also made a very good point, which some of you may have read:
"Once agreement has been reached to change any part of the pension scheme, the Deed of Trust is removed forever"
Is this true?
The problem with the whole scenario is that there is no organisation/union/group that is putting an official counter-argument to the need for changes - it's just us.
But how many people in the company will just go with what the unions and/or company says, and vote yes?
Happier Times ? I'm still to be convinced that Nationalisation is a positive thing. You might look back on the time pre PPP with nostalgia but I remember it slightly differently. I remember years of pay rises restricted by Government pay policy because public sector pay is apparently inflationary. I remember restricted investment because of the public sector borrowing requirement. If you really think our pension will be safe back in the nationalised fold take a look at the state of the Royal Mail pension scheme, the Government is the only shareholder in that business.
I'm still waiting to see what the Union has to say at the meetings before I make up my mind.
If they were not Nationalised they would all have lost their jobs. Thats why the Government stepped in and saved them !
I spoke to some of them on the phone, and they were very happy people
"(x) The BEC shall ballot immediately for industrial action whenever NATS makes any move to re-negotiate the Pension Scheme that may detrimentally affect new or existing
members.
It isn't just a question of sticking to our pension. It's still not clear to me what keeping the pension exactly as it currently is really means. If it was a straight choice between choosing a degraded pension and the current pension and nothing else changes then it's as pretty simple choice and everybody votes No. However if it's a choice between a degraded pension and everybody keeps their job or the current pension and some NATS staff lose their jobs then it isn't such an easy choice. I'd find it quite hard to vote No if it meant somebody else losing their job even if I was pretty sure I'd keep mine. I certainly wouldn't vote No if it meant me losing my job so that somebody who's paid many times the national average and enjoys exceptionally good working conditions can keep his pension exactly as it is.
It could be a covert way by Prospect to get new members. Perhaps if the make noises that this ridiculous pensions proposal is a good idea, folk will join purely to get a vote.
Linear Mode
