Originally Posted by
BEXIL160
Hmmm,
If everythinmg is as secure as BD suggests (and I'd like to believe he is right) then why are NATS management going to all this trouble when they have NO CHANCE of getting the allegedly required 100%?
Its 100% of members who have to vote in favour of a change to CAAPS (or the law would have to be changed). NATS are not proposing a change, they're proposing to close it off to new employees. From the reactions in this thread its obvious why NATS are going to all the trouble of explaining to current employees just why they want to do it, they don't want disenfranchised, hacked off and militant staff.
Protecting "the company?" and therefore it's employees. You're having a laugh.
Sigh! The regulator has allowed a pass through of pensions costs to the airlines in CP2 (but not for those employed after 1st Jan 2006). In other words NATS are charging the airlines directly, in the form of an increased route charge, for the contributions to CAAPS. As you can imagine the airlines are less than pleased to have to shoulder this additional cost on top of what they already consider to be the most expensive ATSP in Europe. Particularly when you consider that BA has a HUGE hole in its pension fund and I doubt RyanAir or EasyJet have much of a pension scheme. The airlines are squeezed on how much they can charge because they're all in competition with each other and could price themselves out of the market. NATS is a monopoly provider, no one else can offer en route services in the UK. But NATS cannot simply charge what they like, the regulator examines the books and investment proposals and decides on what NATS may charge. Those charges have not only been capped in CP2 but are being reduced by percentages over the years.
The regulator has fired a warning shot over NATS bows in CP2 by not allowing the pass through of pension costs for those employed after 1st Jan 2006. The regulator has made it clear that if NATS do not take any action to reduce pension costs they will take further action in CP3. Further action means yet more reductions in route charges and less pass through of pension costs. The regulator has to take action because of pressure by the airlines to reduce the costs of charges made by the NATS monopoly.
If the route charges are made smaller by the regulator and pension pass through is not allowed then NATS faces a reduction in revenue with an increase in pension costs. By taking action now the company are protecting the employees from the prospect of NATS going bust and the government then doing a Railtrack (which I have no doubt they would, ATC is too important to the UK).
BD