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.
One important fact possibly not covered on here which potentially blows NATS' figures out of the water is this...
NATS is paid largely in Euro's by airlines. Over the course of the last 12 months (maybe less) The euro has gained in strengh by nearly 30% and there is no prospect of it recovering in the near future.
NATS' staff are paid in Sterling.
The result of this is that NATS' staff costs in real terms have reduced by 30% over the last year!
We don't see this in any 'we're in deep cak arguments' do we?
"...the Regulator only allows NATS to make a profit in order to fund the investment program." Is your statement factually correct or not? Just a 'yes' or 'no' will do, thanks.
Like any attempt to summarise a very complex subject on a web forum it's both factually correct and factually incorrect and also like any complex subject there is no yes or no answer. As I've tried to explain the Regulator has allowed pass through of the capital investment programme so it has allowed NATS to make a large part of the profit to fund the agreed investment programme. If it won't allow NATS to include all the pension payments in the charging regime it isn't going to allow NATS to redirect the investment money to pay the pension payments either. I'm sure it would be quite happy for NATS to use any part of the profit not already earmarked for investment to pay pensions but that's a very small part and if you think it's enough to pay the sort of sums we're talking about you are going to be very disappointed.
The result of this is that NATS' staff costs in real terms have reduced by 30% over the last year!
Have they ? The clue is on page 31 of the Annual report. There will be some gain from the drop of the pound against the Euro but nowhere near as much as you think. Remember also that a lot of our capital expenditure at the moment is with companies in the euro zone.
With an already highly UNattractive trainee salary, and now a new UNattractive pension scheme, how long will people continue to be interested in taking a career change and decide to come and work for NATS?
NATS isn't all about ATCOs!! (even though you'd think it was on this forum ). The engineering schemes (EngTechs, DEG, etc) are pretty competitive and while WE don't like it because we have a very good Defined Benefits scheme, I did a quick poll of some friends and family when all this started about the new Defined Contribution scheme and nobody is aware of anything better in the marketplace. I couldn't find one person who could come anywhere near to the 2:1 ratio capped at 18% company contribution that NATS is putting forward. It definitely is NOT a UNattractive pension scheme - just LESS attractive than the current one.
Airways B
Unfortunately, as a visit to the CRCO web site will show you, the NATS charge rate is recalculated every month based on the Sterling/Euro rate at the start of that month. The effects of the fall in the value of the pound are therefore of marginal , if any, value to the company. EUROCONTROL - Unit Rates & Tariffs
Keeping to the charge cap (RPI-x%) has been relatively easy when traffic growth has been so high, even with above RPI increases to the payroll. With the decline in the 2008 traffic figures, it now looks like it might be more difficult to make a profit within the cap for this year. http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/standard_page/su_forecast_main.html
The capital programme is actually quite significant (over £100 million per year) and a high proportion is spent in Norway and the Eurozone. Contracts already let will probably have some protection against a decline in Sterling but future projects might be more problematic. Can we keep NAS going for another decade until we can afford a replacement?
And finally, some good news: Fareham is in the top ten areas for life expectancy.
Last edited by PeltonLevel : 16th November 2008 at 23:23.
"...the Regulator only allows NATS to make a profit in order to fund the investment program."
It's unfortunate that you make a very direct statement in an effort to support your management position of wanting a 'yes' vote but when asked for a straight answer you obfuscate.
Never mind, I watch pmq's regularly so i'm quite used to it.
Quote:
I'm sure it would be quite happy for NATS to use any part of the profit not already earmarked for investment to pay pensions...
Such as...
£20.9m spent on exceptional redundancy and relocation costs
£15.8m early repayment charge on the shareholder loan notes
£65m shareholder loan notes themselves
£5.5m expected savings from above repayment in 2009
...I couldn't find one person who could come anywhere near to the 2:1 ratio capped at 18% Company contribution that NATS is putting forward. It definitely is NOT a unattractive pension scheme - just LESS attractive than the current one.
Well said! At last someone is actually using their brains and wising-up to economic reality instead of letting their guts and emotion speak. As for NSL being sold off, maybe - but it's not that attractive given its overheads; and don't forget, it'll only take the stroke of a politician's pen to open up NERL to any SESAR-approved ANSP to buy into, or even buy out, HMG's 49% shareholding. And if that happens, whilst TUPE will protect staff salaries, pension arrangements and other T&Cs are not covered by the UK or European legislation, so the consequences to the NATS Section of CAAPS could ultimately be even worse for the existing members.
What econonmic reality is that then??? The reality that I stand to be up to £10k out of pocket by the time I retire?? It may be a better scheme than other companies have, I couldn't really give a monkeys, £10k is STILL £10k FFS!! And thats per year. And all this while NATS has been spunking money left, right and centre on pointless initiatives and award ceremonies..."Well done, you spent all day looking at photo of the day and drinking Tazo Chai Latte...have a free evening on the company all expenses paid". THAT is the reality of life in NATS.
What econonmic reality is that then??? The reality that I stand to be up to £10k out of pocket by the time I retire?? It may be a better scheme than other companies have, I couldn't really give a monkeys, £10k is STILL £10k FFS!! And thats per year. And all this while NATS has been spunking money left, right and centre on pointless initiatives and award ceremonies..."Well done, you spent all day looking at photo of the day and drinking Tazo Chai Latte...have a free evening on the company all expenses paid". THAT is the reality of life in NATS.
I'm a NO voter... but this is absolute trash
You don't stand to lose out on £10k a year. I don't think we should accept the changes, but statements like that are just as bad, if not worse, than the crap we're being fed about this being our only hope. You'd stand to be £10k per year worse off if we received salary increases of at least RPI+1.5% every year from now till your retirement.
That just is not going to happen I'm afraid. What I've heard recently is that flat RPI is the best we can hope for short term. If the rumoured deflation occurs then a complete pay freeze will be likely (still and increase in real terms).
As for the childish rubbish aimed at non Ops staff... YAWN
Vote NO though... This is not the best deal possible.
You'd stand to be £10k per year worse off if we received salary increases of at least RPI+1.5% every year from now till your retirement
But RPI+1.5% is the figure that NATS and the actuaries use to forcast the cost of the fund. Its THEIR figure. So if we're not going to get these pay rises why don't NATS readjust their forecast costs?
BTW we have had on average 2.5% in the last 10 years. There is plenty that NATS will have to get us to agree to in the years to come and do you think that over 15 years we won't get above rpi+0.5%? Even once and we're worse off.
Panic setting in as extra brainwashing sessions hastily arranged for the unwashed. Promises of time to permit questions before they run for the door. The best presentation so far was on Bremner Bird & Fortune....catch it if you can.
Let's see......£15.30 pm at 5% over 25 years = £9111.30p.....Oh...hang on...let's call it £21pm before tax at 5% over 25 years=£12505.70p
[average of a raft of rates available this morning]
To be serious for a moment; there can be no credible argument in the absence of a real and visible management austerity programme. We need to return to the core task of ATS provider, and cut away the rest.
Thank you Stupendous Man. Me Me Me,the figures I used in the calculator were RPI +1.5% and guess what...£10k per year worse off. So kindly explain how that is crap please. And actually, I wasn't having a go at non-ops staff, in fact I was very careful not to mention anything about CTC...what I was objecting too was the frivolous waste of money by NATS management. As for your pious, holier than thou attitude....YAWN.
You might as well say "OH MY GOD, I'LL BE £100,000 A YEAR WORSE OFF!! based on assumption of an RPI + 30% pay rise each year
Global financial conditions aside, the introduction of the RPI+0.5% cap will lead directly to a situation where all future pay deals are based on not exceeding that amount. Anything extra is more likely to be dished out as one-off bungs in return for effiencies/cost-cutting/headcount reduction.
So, as much as I'm against accepting the deal... the figures people are coming out with after using the modeller are unrealistic to say the least. That is not to say either that the mere introduction of a cap isn't a negative move. It is... and I don't like it.
BTW we have had on average 2.5% in the last 10 years. There is plenty that NATS will have to get us to agree to in the years to come and do you think that over 15 years we won't get above rpi+0.5%? Even once and we're worse off.
Well I do think there is scope for some loopholes here... If you look back at that record of average 2.5%, how much of it was straight 'cost-of-living' and how much of it was reward for working practices and the like that were rolled up into the annual deal?
Perhaps in future, increases in direct relation to major changes in working and resultant cost savings, could be divorced from the cost-of-living rise - and so not applicable for the RPI + 0.5% cap.
Mr.777
And actually, I wasn't having a go at non-ops staff, in fact I was very careful not to mention anything about CTC...what I was objecting too was the frivolous waste of money by NATS management
They do seem unduly sensitive at CTC, I am sure they have absolutely nothing to worry about, and will still be viewed as "essential core staff" by any new owners as much as they are now by NATS, even in this present financial crisis.
in the absence of a real and visible management austerity programme.
Thats certainly the case in the department and across the division I work in. I'm sure it'll be rolled out across the remainder of the company soon.
Apart from the Long service award celebration last Saturday has anyone else heard of anything? I haven't, those days are long gone whilst we continue to have to charge RPI -x% by the regulator.
BD
Last edited by BDiONU : 18th November 2008 at 07:30.
Reason: Tiredness.
Oh and income is currently down by £1.5million a day.
Can you reveal your source for that? From NATS annual report 2007/8 total revenue for the year was £742m which is just over £2m per day....... Have all the planes stopped flying? Not from where I see the industry! Yes there have been cutbacks in flights but to drop from £2m to £0.5m revenue per day? UK Airports/Skies must be rather like ghost-towns
). The engineering schemes (EngTechs, DEG, etc) are pretty competitive and while WE don't like it because we have a very good Defined Benefits scheme, I did a quick poll of some friends and family when all this started about the new Defined Contribution scheme and nobody is aware of anything better in the marketplace. I couldn't find one person who could come anywhere near to the 2:1 ratio capped at 18% company contribution that NATS is putting forward. It definitely is NOT a UNattractive pension scheme - just LESS attractive than the current one. 
Linear Mode
