Well 264 what can I say! The introduction of names serves no purpose other than to put a specific person under pressure. This is not IMHO a sensible move. The BEC is more than one person.
However I draw your attention to the letter published by a trustee and apparently concurred with by another trustee, in which they reflect their deep concern for the future of our pension. I know these people well and trust their judgement above all others.
I know that Prospect/BEC had no option when it came to accepting TAG's requirement for a pension holiday, they are entitled to do this under existing legislation.
However I am deeply upset that my union did not see fit to keep me informed of developments as they were happening and the news was kept from me until it was let out by the trustees. Apparently the deal would have been done without our being given a chance to comment. This is what I am now doing.
Many NATS managers are also concerned about this arrangement and have publicly stated their opposition, I respect the opinion of many of these people.
Why not have the pension fund buy NATS? It can afford it! TAG have a massive debt to service, the interest payments are big enough, add to this the costs of running this company along with reduced revenue and you are looking at a dire situation.
For those of you working in ACCs you may not see much downturn in traffic, but look at the size of those aircraft and there alone you see a loss of income. We charge by the ton! At the London airports a B747 gives 7 times more income than a B737.
Hope this keeps the pot on the fire.
