I think the number of posts shows there's not an apathetic audience on this subject, but there's no reason to jump to conclusions without considering all the facts.
1. Over recent years, if the only thing making money for the scheme was the employee and employer contributions then there would probably have always been a contribution rate of around 30%. The money is invested and healthy profits made which reduce the burden on contributions. This continues to be the case and - as with any sensible investor at the moment - i don't think they'll be investing within the aviation industry!
2. Under the 'trust of promise' should the scheme fold for any reason, NATS are obliged to offer 'an equitable scheme'. I think it unrealistic that management (NATS or TAG) would see it as a positive move to wind up one scheme only to have to pay horrendous start-up costs on an equally expensive new scheme.
I dislike the idea of a contributions holiday as much as the next future pensioner, but it's not quite as disasterous as some would like to make out.