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.
Slider 57,
Studied Maths eh.Well on a 10 day cycle doing doggos(nights) then you are at work for 7 days in that period.Also with a random selection of my watch roster then in Nov2008,doing 2 sets of nights I work 20 days out of 30.A mon-fri 9-5 works 20 days as well.:confused.
I don't see many 9-5 workers working Christmas day,New Year's day and night shifts as well.Our hours are limited by law for safety.
Anyway I have part of my pension deferred in CAA section of CAAPS.They seem to be doing OK at looking after my hard earned money.Yet NATS section is making a pigs ear of it.How come? The pension review brochure is exactly the same,bar the figures,so it's basically the same scheme.As they say ''Taking care of business,TAKING GOOD CARE OF YOUR FUTURE''.Or in NATS case Taking holidays from business,Selling you down the river.
I will try to explain this but I would urge you to go to a briefing because the actuary at ours explained it far better and more accurately than I can and, as somebody else pointed out, she was also much cuter than me.
The pension scheme has current liabilities based on the benefits people have already amassed and the current pension pot should be big enough to fund those liabilities. The scheme is in surplus or deficit depending upon whether or not it is predicted to meet the current liabilities.
The scheme also has predicted future liabilities caused by the further benefits its members are expected to earn before they retire. The underlying rate is the contribution rate required to ensure that these added benefits are sufficiently funded as they are amassed.
The underlying rate depends upon those future liabilities and doesn't change with surplus or deficit. However if there is a surplus NATS can pay less tha the underlying rate until the surplus is reduced to the level agreed between NATS and the Trustees.
Changes to assumptions have an effect on both current and future liabilities but, because of the timescales involved, are likely to have a far bigger effect on the future liabilities thus driving the underlying rate.
A deficit is addressed in a different way. That requires a restoration plan whereby NATS will pay the deficit over an agreed period of time. Ten years seems to be figure regarded as normal. The deficit is not addressed by increasing the underlying rate.
Why are talking about a 15 year deal? If Nats can't afford it now fair enough, but in 3/5/10 years time what then? Why can't we have a review in 5 years to see what exactly is needed to be done. If we are deeper in the doodoo then we can try and fix it earlier, if it is all roses and sunshine then restore it to it's present level, with a small loss for most of us but at least a small loss, instead of a potentially larger one. Quite honestly I'll vote no for the above and some of my previous reasons. This is totally a personal vote and is totally selfish, because lets face it, I've been very selfish and greedy in taking all those massive pay rises and obviously it's all my fault.
...excuse my spelling, is the term 'assonance' appropriate to your poetry? Rita said to her prof (Micheal Caine), in Educating Rita, "the poet got the rhyme wrong!!!!!".
But surely you must realise if this pension deal goes through, NATS will likely be sold off to the preferred bidder
Exactly how do you come to that conclusion. The proposal changes a very expensive pension scheme into an expensive one. I'll accept that makes it more attractive but it's still a long way short of making any difference.
And exactly who is this preferred bidder and what are they going to buy ? We know from the experience of 2001 that NATS can't support any more borrowing so whoever buys will have to pay cash. Even if you value NATS at the bottom end of the scale that probably rules out most of the usual suspects.
Would they buy the Government's share ? Seems unlikely as they wouldn't get control of the company. Would they buy the Airline Group's share ? Possibly but all the member airlines would have to agree and it's widely believed that last time there was any interest at least one of the airlines was not prepared to sell.
....I would like to move from NATS to Alstom, as I hear you made a better job at the employees' pension than you are struggling with, as my present employer, at NATS. Is this all true? Would my pension be better at Alstom than NATS? Only you would know. I like to keep in with people 'in the know'. There are lots of nasty people around me that keep telling me that you are destroying a perfectly good scheme. Surely with all those nice people in the unions agreeing with you then it must be alright? Only you can tell me whether I would be a naughty employee or not if I withdrew my labour to protect what some of the people around me call 'Ts & Cs'. Are they bullies?
I know you read this Paul, so please help me with my investments.
Exactly how do you come to that conclusion. The proposal changes a very expensive pension scheme into an expensive one. I'll accept that makes it more attractive but it's still a long way short of making any difference.
And exactly who is this preferred bidder and what are they going to buy ?
please take me up on my offer of odds of 25/1 that nsl will NOT be sold by 2015. i accept paypal or personal cheque (allow 5 days to clear)
Quote: Vote NO
But surely you must realise if this pension deal goes through, NATS will likely be sold off to the preferred bidder
Quote:
eglnyt : Exactly how do you come to that conclusion. The proposal changes a very expensive pension scheme into an expensive one. I'll accept that makes it more attractive but it's still a long way short of making any difference.
I come to that conclusion based on common sense. I think you would have to be extremely naive not to consider that NATS is being prepared for a sell off. Once the incumbent management have done their best (and worse for us over the past few years) the logical outcome is sell for profit, it's a fact of life.
Quote:
eglnyt: And exactly who is this preferred bidder and what are they going to buy ? We know from the experience of 2001 that NATS can't support any more borrowing so whoever buys will have to pay cash. Even if you value NATS at the bottom end of the scale that probably rules out most of the usual suspects.
The preferred bidder could be anyone. NSL and or NERL could be bought
Quote:
eglnyt: Would they buy the Government's share ? Seems unlikely as they wouldn't get control of the company. Would they buy the Airline Group's share ? Possibly but all the member airlines would have to agree and it's widely believed that last time there was any interest at least one of the airlines was not prepared to sell
The Government must retain 25% leaving 70% for sale. (5% retained by staff)
The airline group cannot sell until NPC goes live, then they will sell as they wished to do so before. I am not so sure all the airlines would have to agree, some have a bigger stake than others and would have the final say. In the current downward trend of aviation movements and Airlines going bust (probably another 25 worldwide this winter "Willie Walsh" ) the revenue generated by selling NATS shares could be a lifeline to any airline in TAG. Remember BA and Virgin, part owners of NATS, have legal fines and costs amounting to £365 Million to pay soon, now where could they possibly get some cash from to pay for their dishonest deeds ??
BAA own 4% of NATS and are in financial trouble following the delay of T5 and their Spanish part owners can't finance the £12 billion loan they acquired recently (bad timing!)
I think some of us need to remove those "rose tinted specs" and wake up to what is about to happen to NATS if this Pension deal goes through, and almost certainly it won't benefit the staff !
Last edited by Vote NO : 21st November 2008 at 11:09.
As for the comments about Barron and his Aston/bonuses. I hate the bonus culture NATS has for management, but until someone provides me with proof that Barron has these written into his contract I think we should refrain from making comment
Last year he earned something like £450k with a bonus of £200k, that is a FACT. The figures are available somewhere and have been mentioned as much several times on this thread already.
Quote:
How many people think we will get public sympathy for going on strike over a reasonably good pension deal. Sure we all stand to lose a little but I personally think it is better than losing the lot.
In the event of industiral action, public sympathy has NOTHING to do with going on strike. I would say losing between £5-10k PER YEAR on my pension, which may I remind you is deferred salary, is more than losing a little.
please take me up on my offer of odds of 25/1 that nsl will NOT be sold by 2015. i accept paypal or personal cheque (allow 5 days to clear)
We were talking about a sale of NATS. Selling off NSL is a different matter. NSL is already effectively a separate company and increasingly it will separate from the rest of the group. It has to do that because unless it starts to make inroads into its costs it will soon reach a point where it isn't competitive because you can't make a profit on many airport contracts with NATS terms and conditions. Whether or not the shares are sold to somebody else or retained by NATS is largely irrelevant because the drivers on the business will be the same.
Although eglnyt may have some bad news about the betting regulator not allowing punters to profit beyond the return of their original investment which of course means the underlying betting odds are unsustainable at somewhere around evens especially considering the life expectancy of nsl.
As per my post yesterday, here in full is the e-mail that my colleague received. They did not want to post it themselves because their PPRuNe moniker is known to some of their workmates and they wanted to afford themselves of some anonymity.
They are unhappy that the union has taken this step and have stated that instead of convincing them to vote in favour of the proposals, it has actually made them more convinced to vote no.
Any grammatical mistakes in the text are made entirely by the original authors.
Quote:
PCS
November 2008
Dear Member,
We are writing to you because we are concerned that all PCS members may not have taken the opportunity to attend one of the NTUS briefings which have been tagged on to the joint NTUS/NATS briefings on the pensions proposals.
This issue is probably the most important we have faced as employees of NATS, certainly since PPP and for that reason we believe that prior to casting your vote in the upcoming ballot you are fully aware of the potential consequences of a no vote.
Over the last 18 months we have been working as part of the NTUS team looking at our pension scheme and the ability of NATS to continue to meet their contributions as they are required.
As recently as our annual delegate conference in May this year we were firmly of the belief that closing the scheme to new entrants was not an option for PCS. However since then we have had the final result of the triennial evaluation and also the annual report by the scheme actuary.
The figures revealed by these evaluations have caused the Group Executive to rethink their position and to seriously challenge whether or not NATS could not continue to pay the level of contributions required to provide for our future pensions benefits.
We believe that our ultimate responsibility as your representatives, above all other considerations, is to protect the interests of all members. In order to do this we believe that, having examined all other options available, we have no choice but to recommend acceptance of the joint proposal.
We pose you the questions; how many MSG and ATSA jobs would survive a 42-43% on cost to cover pensions? How many contracts in NSL could stand such charges? Within NERL, for those jobs left, what could the company afford to pay in future pay rises if they were paying this underlying rate, and what attack would be made on our other terms and conditions?
In reaching this conclusion we examined the possibility that should NATS be unable to pay their pensions contribution they could go into administration.
This raised the question of whether or not re-nationalisation would be the best way to protect our members’ jobs, pay and pensions. It is our view that, should this scenario come to fruition, and in recognition that our pension scheme had effectively bankrupt a monopoly provider the administrator would have little choice but to close that pension scheme.
If we were re-nationalised, we would encourage you to look at the pay rates in the Civil Service, look at the pay cap in the Civil Service (2% including increments). PCS colleagues who are employed by the government are in continual dispute with their employer as they seek to remove a pay cap which is effectively cutting their standard of living.
As stated earlier we have been involved in these discussions for 18 months, and we are asking you to believe us when we say we think we have explored all the options. The current joint proposal is the best way to protect all our pensions. Indeed, if we believed that there were any alternatives then we would not be balloting now on this proposal.
Both of us have been very active in the Labour Party and the Trade Union for a number of years, and if for one moment we believed that re-nationalisation was the answer, we would be leading the campaign for this to happen.
We want to ensure your pension is safe, regardless of whether you are 64 or 18 or anything in between. We are 100% convinced voting YES is the best way to protect your pension now and into the future.
Voting no is a massive gamble which may put your future financial security at risk and we would ask that you take this into account when you get your ballot paper and before you cast your vote.
Yours fraternally and in a personal capacity.
Tweedle Dum Tweedle Dee
Hmm - lets see...
Quote:
This issue is probably the most important we have faced as employees of NATS, certainly since PPP and for that reason we believe that prior to casting your vote in the upcoming ballot you are fully aware of the potential consequences of a no vote.
Based on our following letter that only states our position and beliefs – hardly a balanced document to use to make an informed decision.
Quote:
We pose you the questions; how many MSG and ATSA jobs would survive a 42-43% on cost to cover pensions? How many contracts in NSL could stand such charges? Within NERL, for those jobs left, what could the company afford to pay in future pay rises if they were paying this underlying rate, and what attack would be made on our other terms and conditions?
Scare mongering and pure speculation, especially the phrase:
Quote:
Within NERL, for those jobs left
There is a very strong argument that says closing the pension scheme will cause job losses if and when NSL is sold off, as the NATS support infrastructure for those contracts will be removed, as they will be surplus to requirements.
Quote:
In reaching this conclusion we examined the possibility that should NATS be unable to pay their pensions contribution they could go into administration.
Speculation, based on management tactics?? Similarly, it may well not go into liquidation.
Quote:
This raised the question of whether or not re-nationalisation would be the best way to protect our members’ jobs, pay and pensions. It is our view that, should this scenario come to fruition, and in recognition that our pension scheme had effectively bankrupt a monopoly provider the administrator would have little choice but to close that pension scheme.
Pure speculation
Quote:
As stated earlier we have been involved in these discussions for 18 months, and we are asking you to believe us when we say we think we have explored all the options. The current joint proposal is the best way to protect all our pensions.
Indeed, if we believed that there were any alternatives then we would not be balloting now on this proposal.
So you ‘think’ you have explored all the options… that’s comforting…
Quote:
Both of us have been very active in the Labour Party and the Trade Union for a number of years, and if for one moment we believed that re-nationalisation was the answer, we would be leading the campaign for this to happen.
Labour Party – what is the relevance and indeed is it even wise to mention membership? This is the Labour Party that promised us ‘Our skies are not for sale’ as part of their election campaign. The subsequent PPP of NATS (by Labour) saddled the company with huge debts.
Also, this is the same Labour Party who are the employer mentioned during arguments about re-nationalisation -
Quote:
If we were re-nationalised, we would encourage you to look at the pay rates in the Civil Service, look at the pay cap in the Civil Service (2% including increments). PCS colleagues who are employed by the government are in continual dispute with their employer as they seek to remove a pay cap which is effectively cutting their standard of living.
So personally, I don’t think being members of the Labour party is something to be harping on about considering the arguments you are trying to make!!
Quote:
Voting no is a massive gamble which may put your future financial security at risk and we would ask that you take this into account when you get your ballot paper and before you cast your vote.
Double speculation… Voting yes is also a gamble – even NATS admit that it only mitigates some risk. Any fund that relies on investments in stocks and shares is a risk… if it wasn’t a risk, we’d all have personal portfolios and we’d all be rich!!
We were talking about a sale of NATS. Selling off NSL is a different matter.
That is pure management speak and complete twaddle. I bet the employees of NSL are all comforted by that statement.
Furthermore, I bet all the staff at CTC etc who support NSL must be comforted by that statement... do you think if we sold off NSL we would keep anywhere near as many support jobs?
egnlyt - you seem remarkably well informed when it comes to finances, however the trend of your posts seems to indicate that you have a vested interest (beyond being a pension fund member) in gaining NATS a yes vote.
Your arguments are unravelling - you talk of possible job losses if we vote no then come out with the likes of the above
Slider57
Quote:
Having studied Maths, I am struggling to see the arguement about the NATS management pension break. Yes it will have affected the pension but not on the scale some people are saying.
If however you have proof that the pension holiday has led to the huge defecit we now seem to have then please post it on NATSNET for all to see. As yet no one has shown me numbers that seem to add up.
You may have studied maths, however you need to read peoples posts more carefully.
The FACT of the matter is, if NATS had not taken the pension holiday and paid in reduced contributins after that time, the deficit would not be as large as it is today. That's not even Maths, its basic primary school arithmetic.
What people are saying is if contributions had been kept up, then the deficit would not be as large... we are not saying that there would be no deficit
as for
Quote:
We also seem to have the odd rant about our T& C's, compared to nurses/police/armed forces and hundreds of other lower paid workers out there, we have got a pretty good deal overall.
Not a valid argument - if you want to throw that into the pot, then I put it to you that compared to professional footballers/basketball players we have a pretty poor deal.
Just because Nurses get paid a woeful wage does not mean we need to accept degradation in our Ts & Cs - it's a totally separate argument.
Quote:
swap places with some of the boys and girls in Afghanistan or Iraq. You might then appreciate how good a deal you have.
Again, completely irrelevant. Have you served in the armed forces? I have, I spent many years in the UK armed Forces before starting a second career with NATS. I have many friends who are still in and who are on active duty in all the different theatres.
I moved my ringfenced military penson into NATS to buy back years - if this proposal goes ahead, those years I have bought back (by my very service you are usingas an argument) will be worth less than if I had left them in my military pension. Please keep the argument relative. Comparison of different wages, conditions etc is irrelevant, because we can easily claim to be either seen off, or better off, depending how you massage the statistics and what profession(s) you use for comparison.
Both of us have been very active in the Labour Party and the Trade Union for a number of years, and if for one moment we believed that re-nationalisation was the answer, we would be leading the campaign for this to happen.
They are obviously New Labour Capitalists
It is "Old Labour" which favours re nationalisation, and is currently the way to go in this Global financial crisis
Where would our Banks be now if the Government had not Nationalised them ? Any takers on this question ??
Also, remember we are only part privatised and the majority, 49%, is owned by HMG, making the change to 100% all that bit easier
Well I reckon that some if not all of NSL will be sold by 2010.What's do you reckon the odds are? Evens
If anyone does NOT think nsl will be sold by 2015 i will pay odds of 25/1 on any stake.
It WILL be sold. That is not a scaremongering statement and I am willing to back it up with ericbrokes bookmakers of swanwick, circa 2008.
also offering odds of 1/10 that Nats makes a profit next year after a yes vote on the pension of at least 60 million.
If enough of you place a stake with me, I may not need a pension.
Our hours are limited by law for safety.
Linear Mode
