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.
anotherthing, at least we're safe in the knowledge they haven't been able to make the pension look even worse by changing life expectancy assumptions used to calculate future liabilities.
For that they'd need to have NATS board members on the board of trustees.
I wonder what life expectancy is being used to calculate future liabilities and how that compares to other pension schemes.
I know this is not just about ATCO's - I know NATS is about a hell of a lot more than just ATCO's.
However it is a fact that shift workers - ATCOs/ATSAs/ATCEs, have a lower than average life expectancy.
However that life expectancy has risen since records began, along with the life expectancy of everyone else in the developed world.
It worries me that the 'experts' only just stumbled across the fact in the past 18 months. Of course the fact that it helps strengthen the 'we can't afford the pension' case is a coincidence .
Also, if they had taken account of the fact several years ago, the underlying rate that NATS should have been paying (but haven't been) would have been slightly higher, meaning that the difference between that rate and the new anticipated rate would not have been as large.
However, that would not have the same impact, so wasn't to the benefit of NATS!
Mind you, I'm also a bit disconcerted that our money 'experts' within NATS have only just heard about SMART pensions...
I'm not really into conspiracy theories, I don't give a damn who does the vote count and I don't give a damn about the numbered voting sheets... however I do believe that NATS have manoeuvred the company into this position deliberately.
We were being pushed into this scenario, it was a case of 'when', not 'if'.
However that life expectancy has risen since records began, along with the life expectancy of everyone else in the developed world.
It worries me that the 'experts' only just stumbled across the fact in the past 18 months. Of course the fact that it helps strengthen the 'we can't afford the pension' case is a coincidence .
But maybe it's not about the life expectancy of us old wrinklies but about the life expectancy of today's 20 year olds, many of whom would still hope to be ATCOs in 40 years time-unlike many other businesses.
A quick look at the guidance from the Pensions Regulator will show that the Trustees have very little choice in what life expectancy figures they use regardless of who is on the panel of Trustees.
NATS paid 12.2% up until April when it started paying 20%.
Nearly right - actually 22.6% until the end of 2008, then 20%. This gives an average of 20% for the whole of 2008. See: https://www.caaps.co.uk/axiseinterne...tributions.pdf (you can open this without logging in to the CAAPS website). Others may choose to comment on the actuary's statement!
Last edited by PeltonLevel : 2nd December 2008 at 22:15. Reason: Indication of why odd percentage for last 3 quarters of 2008 might have been chosen
But maybe it's not about the life expectancy of us old wrinklies but about the life expectancy of today's 20 year olds, many of whom would still hope to be ATCOs in 40 years time-unlike many other businesses.
It doesn't matter whose extended life expectancy we are talking about. The fact is it has been rising since records began in the developed worlds - and therefore there is going to be a continued slight increase year on year on any pension fund.
We have and always will need to employ people - that's a known fact along with the known fact that they would be eligible for a pension. Your statement, if indicative of how the pension fund had been run, indicates a lack of long term planning.
Eglnyt
Pensions regulator/Actuaries/whoever. The fact is, life expectancy has increased for years - only slightly year on year, but always an increase.
I know it's possibly a moot point, but surely this long established fact should have been factored into pension funds earlier??
Pensions regulator/Actuaries/whoever. The fact is, life expectancy has increased for years - only slightly year on year, but always an increase. I know it's possibly a moot point, but surely this long established fact should have been factored into pension funds earlier??
The assumptions have always factored in an increase in life expectancy the problem is that in the last few years that increase has accelerated far greater than anybody anticipated.
"Why would people who worked at an airport that NATS suddenly lost it's contract for lose their jobs?"
Because at the union conference Mr Barron apparently said that he would be worried about massive redundancy payouts if NATS lost the contract at EGCC... Doesn't sound like he wants to keep them, does it? If NATS start walking away from NSL contracts, what do you think they will do with the staff? A surplus of tower controllers... no job for them! Hello redundancy package. Am I the only one that sees this? These are colleagues for "Eff's sake".
If NATS start walking away from NSL contracts, what do you think they will do with the staff? A surplus of tower controllers
What do you think will happen to them Fenella??
The same as happens whenever a change of service provider happens at an airfield... the winner of the new contract takes on the old staff.
Or do you think that new controllers can be drafted in and be qualified to work at whichever airport is concerned the day after the contract changes hands?
Who do you think will do the training Fenella?
Barron has a track history of breaking up companies and selling off the non performing parts. He has a history of closing pension schemes.
His management staff have just recently refused to deny that NSL will be put up for sale, regardless of what happens with pensions.
Our pension is viable - it is the willingness of NATS to maintain it that is in question.
NSL is safer from buy out if the more expensive pension is kept in place.
Make NSL cheaper to run, make it easier to sell. It's not rocket science
Our pension is viable - it is the willingness of NATS to maintain it that is in question.
Do you really think a pension with a 42% underlying rate is viable ? Most of those which have already been restructured had much lower underlying rates. Even 30% is considered very expensive.
Anotherthing, Well the last time NATS lost a contract (Prestwick) I don't think there were many takers to go to PIK.The new controllers were sitting with airbands listening to what was going on ready for day one. I would like to think that NATS would give the option to people to move,after all we are a mobile grade and a valuable highly skilled resource in world wide demand. There is also TUPE for people who wish to stay put.I think changing ATC suppliers at the busier units is almost impossible nowdays with SRG and all the rules that apply. In fact even a small reduction in the number of staff at the smaller units,can have a drastic affect on the service provided.Any newcomers would have to be pinched from other units,but since NATS will have got rid of the good pension,then where are they coming from? You just have to look at the ads in Flight and there are lots of jobs for Approach,Approach Radar and Tower qualified ATCOs. But then NSL isn't up for sale.The management say so.
I really hope NATS do not sell NSL - it would be a very poor decision as far as being a 'World Leader in ATM' is concerned.
If they did, I would hope they offered jobs within th ecompany for those who wished to stay with NATS - we are short of ATCOs after all, temporary economic downturn or not.
I just don't understand how Fenella can say that all the ATCOs at say EGCC would be jobless if NATS lost the contract .
Well personally if our unit lost it contract,then I would take the redundancy package and then sit back.The new contractor would be desperate to employ people with the validations,so it's name your price.The alternative is that the airport would be closed. Then again NATS could come up with a package to keep it's valuable staff.
Because at the union conference Mr Barron apparently said that he would be worried about massive redundancy payouts if NATS lost the contract at EGCC... Doesn't sound like he wants to keep them, does it? If NATS start walking away from NSL contracts, what do you think they will do with the staff? A surplus of tower controllers... no job for them! Hello redundancy package. Am I the only one that sees this? These are colleagues for "Eff's sake".
Fenella... I'm pretty sure every redundancy offered in NATS is over-subscribed. It's less about NATS wanting rid of people than people itching to put their hand up to take the money. Barron's "Fear" is that everybody wants redundancy and NATS ends up having to pay it. They would far rather retain staff and avoid that huge outlay.
Not sure what barron is referring to all the people directly involved in any contract that is lost, he can pass on to the winner under the TUPE regulations so he wouldn't have to pay redundancy
I guess there might be a few central admin jobs that he would have to cut but which he cannot justify are directly involved in the particular contract. Not much though
This also means ATCOs need not fear such redundancy (unless the new contract owner believes it needs fewer ATCOs which sounds unlikely)
Nail on the head there. Without wanting to sound like we (collective) are up our own backside (for anyone who is not in the ATC business), ATCOS, ATSA's and, to a slightly lesser extent (though local knowledge of systems etc is extremely important), ATCE's are fairly unique in that if they were to down tools, you could not get someone else just to walk in and take over (like the firemens strike for instance).
Even qualified ATCOs/ATSAs would need to be trained (and pass the exam board), to work at a specific unit. Who would do the training and examining - oh, that would be the people who currently worked there!
ProM,
In reply to your statement - I'll admit that the way some outfits run airports, there could be a perceived reduction in manpower requirements - if they really went for it, any contract winner could possibly shave one or two off the staff list, it would be uncomfortable for those that remained, but could be achieved within the framework of working hour laws.
However, there is such a shortage of ATCO's that anyone who has been valid at a 'busy'ish unit should be able to walk into another job fairly easily.
If I was an NSL employee, I would not be worried about being laid off, as per Fenellas incorrect statements (it won't happen to the vast majority of staff, those that may find themselves in that position could walk into another job easily).
I would be worried about leaving the employ of a large company that is to be fair, still damned good to work for compared to a real job! However, it would take a brave person to bet against the statement that NATS will try to sell of all or part of NSL, especially if they manage to force a lower cost pension through.
... And although I stated
Quote:
...still damned good to work for compared to a real job...
above, that does not mean we should allow any reduction in our Ts and Cs.
In any career or company, having above average Ts&Cs or an above average Pension Scheme is not an acceptable excuse to erode it - it should actually be protected more zealously.
Does anyone else find it quite interesting that the document which PeltonLevel has linked to in post #1756 points out that not only are the company paying far less than the required underlying rate at present (which we already knew), but that the percentage they ARE paying is due to decrease next year until 2013!!!
Does anyone else also find it quite interesting that this document was signed by Nigel Fotherby, the finance director, in March THIS YEAR...which, according to the manager at my briefing, was about 5 years after NATS realised the scheme was in trouble, and about 2 years after commencing negotiations with the union to change the scheme on the basis that the underlying rate was too expensive!!
Finally, does anyone else think that this is not exactly what you would call a prudent course of action for a management team which apparently have the best interests of our scheme, and the workforce in general, at heart?!? What an absolute joke!!
Every one of these presentations has been based on the fact that an underlying rate of 25% is what they're aiming for, and is what is affordable, but yet again they're STILL going to be paying less than they should be, and, indeed, less than they are currently!!! And what do you think is going to happen in about 2011-2012, when they've been underpaying for another 3 years?!? I'm not a gambling man () but if I was, my money would be on them coming cap in hand again asking us to change the supposedly "longterm viable" scheme that was foolishly agreed to in 2008!!
They are trying to pull a fast one on us, colleagues...lets not let them and regret it for the rest of our careers!! As soon as we vote yes for this deal, we can forget any possible negotiating power for any subsequent changes to the pension scheme in a few years time!!
Similar Threads 
and a valuable highly skilled resource in world wide demand.
.
) but if I was, my money would be on them coming cap in hand again asking us to change the supposedly "longterm viable" scheme that was foolishly agreed to in 2008!!
Linear Mode
