Remaining 49% of NATS to be privatised

[The Many Tentacles]

I'd be slightly more concerned about the prospect of the pension scheme disappearing.

[zonoma]

How would the pension scheme be disappearing?

[The Many Tentacles]

It would disappear on the basis that a DB scheme wouldn't be in the best interests of whoever took it over and if I understand correctly, and it's possible I haven't, (in which case ignore this whole post) that a new employer only has to undertake to maintain the terms and conditions you were working under before.

The DB scheme would be a bit of a millstone to any prospective buyers though so it works both ways

[zonoma]

The DB scheme isn't in the best interests of the current share holders but they still have to maintain it. Any new share holders will not be able to close the scheme or stop paying into the scheme, so I don't see how it could "disappear"?

[hangten]

It would disappear on the basis that a DB scheme wouldn't be in the best interests of whoever took it over and if I understand correctly, and it's possible I haven't, (in which case ignore this whole post) that a new employer only has to undertake to maintain the terms and conditions you were working under before.

I think you're getting mixed up with the laws of TUPE. A new owner of 49% of NATS' shares is not a new employer, it's the same employer with a new shareholder. Every time IAG shares are bought and sold on the stock exchange the staff don't have to worry about a new employer.

A shareholder with that big a holding could put pressure on to the board to make any number of changes that might improve their return on investment, but they would have to know what they were getting themselves into when they first bought. That also assumes that one investor would buy the 49% as a whole, which I think is unlikely.

Finally, nobody 'takes over' the pension scheme. The responsibility for it rests with the trustee. The money in the pension scheme cannot be removed by anyone for any other purpose and hence it cannot 'disappear'. If a new shareholder did not demonstrate as much support for the scheme in the future then it could result in some difficult conversations between NATS and the trustee about making good any deficit that might exist.

[jmmoric]

I don't get it, how can a privately owned company have any interrest in stocks from a company, that's not allowed to generate a profit? Other than what is needed for investments in future upgrade/development?

Doesn't ICAO state you're not supposed to take more from the airliners than needed to keep operations running (included future investments)?

(Enroute that is, I suppose TWR/APP part is a little more on normal business terms)

[The Many Tentacles]

I think you're getting mixed up with the laws of TUPE. A new owner of 49% of NATS' shares is not a new employer, it's the same employer with a new shareholder. Every time IAG shares are bought and sold on the stock exchange the staff don't have to worry about a new employer.

You're right, thanks for correcting me Ignore me.

[anotherthing]

All this getting our knickers in a twist over whether or not security would be compromised is just noise... the fact is, as mentioned above, that the money raised by a sale of NATS is peanuts compared to the money the government will get if they hold onto their share and continue to get dividends.

The sale price would be surpassed almost within the term of a government. The sale does not, apart from getting a quick buck, make any financial sense.

[kcockayne]

And that, anotherthing, is exactly why they will go ahead & do it !

[LostThePicture]

....the fact is, as mentioned above, that the money raised by a sale of NATS is peanuts compared to the money the government will get if they hold onto their share and continue to get dividends.

The sale price would be surpassed almost within the term of a government. The sale does not, apart from getting a quick buck, make any financial sense.

An alternative view: NERL is continuously having its future profits squeezed from all sides, NSL are failing to compete profitably against other ANSPs in the airports environment. Arguably, the government will never get a better chance to sell their holding at a premium price.

I'm not saying it would be a great decision but I can understand why they would give it some careful consideration.

LTP

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

Gonzo, I'm sure there are many roles and tasks that NATS undertakes that are of a sensitive nature as far as civil defence and intelligence are concerned. Would it really be in the UK's best interests to have that information passed to a foreign government?
Wasn't there a spying/bugging scandal with Huawei or another Chinese mobile phone manufacturer in the U.S.? (Implying clear links with commercial companies and state espionage agencies)

So are our security processes in such a poor state that, say, a group of executives from the Universities Superannuation Scheme can walk into Swanwick and come away with sensitive documents?

Where do we think these future shareholders will be getting all this classified information from?

They'll be getting it from all of the backdoors built into network infrastructure, supplied by the cheapest bidder, probably Huawei, regardless of who owns NATS

[3miles]

Originally Posted by Headset19

If you don't see any problem with a country like China owning NATS and the potential problems this creates for national security then you really are management material.

What like all of our power, water and other utilities are already owned by non U.K. Companies? We don't own a single utility anymore - think more risk that they turn the juice off and water than I cant go on my holidays.

Not saying think it good idea - don't think it good we sold all of those off to Germans, Spanish, French and Chinese already - even just down to fact that all those profits go out of the country, but in reality there no issue who owns air traffic and remember already NATS is partly privatised - there many options as to how it could be sold and split up. And the regulation of it always be government.