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.
As the person who actually did the research which uncovered the statement by the Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Lords, and who posted a question to Mr Barron last week before releasing it into the Swanwick Ops Room, it is intriguing to see another person claiming credit for the work.
Never mind, so long as it is brought to the discussion, the effect should be the same.
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.
and the reason PCS are recommending it would be?????????
As I said before this is about 3 executives believing it is an acceptable proposal-let's wait for the briefings.
As the person who actually did the research which uncovered the statement by the Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Lords, and who posted a question to Mr Barron last week before releasing it into the Swanwick Ops Room, it is intriguing to see another person claiming credit for the work.
have a pat on the back. excellent work by whoever did it. we could do with this being the first of many "uncovered gems"
After 18 months of negotiations and consultations with many pension experts within the UK, it would be naive to think that every counter argument had not been explored to the nth degree....
The way I see it is that everyone is jumping to their own conclusions before they are fully aware of the facts!! Lets wait for the 3 months of briefings and then see the outcome. I may well be proved wrong, but there is always a slim chance of a YES vote.
Good digging about the statement by the chief whip...not only that the transport Bill 2000, heavy reading but...
pension entitlement of present
and former employees of NATS65-(13) "No amendment may be made to a relevant scheme which would result in a reduction of the accrued or future rights of protected beneficiaries, nor in the contributions by protected beneficiaries who are active members"
I think thats pretty clear...so how do they think they get round that with a pension cap rpi+0.5percent, not even union agreement can overturn this.
These aren't exactly uncovered gems and they don't really take much digging, the pension protection is clearly included in the index to the Transport Act and you ought to be able to find the Act on google in about two seconds. Even without reading the Act if you'd attended any of Paul Barron's roadshow briefings when he first announced his intention to do something about pensions a couple of years ago you'd have heard him say that any change to pension benefits would require an Act of Parliament.
That suggests that what they are proposing isn't a change to the protected benefits. If you really want to do some digging you need to find out exactly what the Trust Deed says about benefits. Alternatively you could wait for the meetings because a number of people are going to ask that very question.
As the person who actually did the research which uncovered the statement by the Deputy Chief Whip to the House of Lords, and who posted a question to Mr Barron last week before releasing it into the Swanwick Ops Room, it is intriguing to see another person claiming credit for the work.
Never mind, so long as it is brought to the discussion, the effect should be the same.
I don't work at Swanwick so do not have a clue what you are talking/moaning about.
I am spending my own time researching the protection on OUR pension (it seems like OUR union is not interested) - well done to you if you are doing the same.
Do not come on here and make accusations about stealing your hard work - this issue affects more than the staff at Swanwick so perhaps you could distribute your findings to the rest of your 'colleagues' (that is if our opinion matters)
All those against changes to the pension need to work together.
EXACTLY!! Anybody with useful information should be posting it on here for EVERYONE to see instead of keeping it within one unit and whinging about 'somebody claiming credit for another persons work'.
Not having a crystal ball I do not know what other people have found.
EXACTLY!! Anybody with useful information should be posting it on here for EVERYONE to see instead of keeping it within one unit and whinging about 'somebody claiming credit for another persons work'.
Exactly !! I refer the Honourable Gentleman to a previous post (reproduced below)
Quote:
SOME PENSION FIGURES TO CONSIDER
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 (MACC/ScACC) pensionable salary in 1990
£73777 – maximum ATCO2 (MACC/ScACC) 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.
Has anyone circulated this round their units yet ? Can anyone drop in their own 1990+2008 figures for ATSA2+4, Engineers ATCE2+4 and ATCO1-3 pay ?
Does anyone know why the AAVA agreement is still in place,when it clealry states in the Union Handbook that any attempt to touch our pension would result in it being pulled?
"(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.
So whats going on reps ? Something isn't right here.....don't tell me "we are keeping our powder dry"
Can someone flush a union rep out from the undergrowth ?
I noticed that also, I think they will need to change it
"Legal Status and Ownership
NATS Holdings Ltd is the holding company for NATS Group. It owns NATS Ltd, which in turn owns two operating subsidiaries: NATS (En-Route) plc (NERL) and NATS (Services) Ltd (NSL). The Airline Group Ltd, a consortium of seven airlines, has the majority of voting rights and 41.9% of the shares of NATS Holdings Ltd. The Secretary of State for Transport owns 48.9%, BAA plc 4.2%; and NATS Employee Sharetrust Ltd 5%. "
Linear Mode
