Originally Posted by
ATSAWHO
Barron, we WILL strike, and you will be gone, and we will remain with our jobs, and pension, along with ALL our colleagues. You must be tired of your job to take the stance you have. Your defeat will be sweet for us.
Who will strike? How will the union gain the necessary support (if indeed the union goes down the route of advocating strike action)? How will CAAPS be able to pay out pensions if NATS goes bust and cannot make any contributions?
Let me reiterate some of the facts from my previous posts because I formed my opinion on the basis of fact, not sure what those calling for strike action are basing their opinion on because all I've heard is a knee jerk reaction.
FACTS:
1) NATS consists of NERL and NSL with NSL operating in a competitive environment so its charges are dictated by what the market will bear. NERL is a monopoly and its charges are regulated by the CAA on behalf of the government.
2) The regulator is reducing the amount NERL may charge in CP2 by percentage reductions each year. So although traffic levels have risen considerably since 9/11 profit is not rising by the same amount. It also needs bearing in mind that NATS lives a fairly hand to mouth existence as the experience of 9/11 showed where government and the airlines had to bail NATS out to the tune of £30m each (remember that?) Although NATS has managed to better restructure its loans we should always bear in mind the fragility of the market.
3) The regulator has warned NATS that it must take action as regards pensions. NATS currently passes through to the airlines (as a part of the route charges) the costs of its contributions to CAAPS. The regulator has fired a warning shot in not allowing NATS to continue to pass through for all employees engaged since 1st Jan 2006. The regulator has made it clear that if NATS take no action to reduce pension costs it will take further action in CP3 and this may be in further route charge reductions or extending the pass through disallowance or a combination of both.
4) NATS cannot, by law, interfere with the current pension scheme and must continue to make contributions to ensure that CAAPS assets meets its obligations. The only changes which can be made to CAAPS are by a 100% vote in favour by its members. Even a single dissenter would cause any vote to fail.
From the above
facts I deduced that if NATS fail to heed the regulators very clear warnings then the regulator will take action which will restrict NATS income. NATS is legally obliged to continue payments into CAAPS but has offset its costs somewhat recently by ploughing the surplus back into the fund but given the money markets fairly dismal performance that surplus is likely to dry up somtime. So NATS are faced with a reducing income but no reduction in its contributions to CAAPS and a highly likely need to increase them. Something has to give and since its the pensions which are exercising the regulator (due to pressure from the airlines) it seems sensible to me that NATS address that area. Since the CAAPS scheme is untouchable I don't see any option but to close it off to new staff.
I consider that this is protecting the company (and
my pension) because if your profits are reducing but your overheads remain the same (or increase) eventually you'll go bust. If NATS goes bust then CAAPS is severely impacted because there will be no more contributions. If CAAPS is impacted then
my pension (which I'm looking forwards to enjoying) will be hit and I really really really don't want that.
So thats my view but I'm curious as to what facts those advocating a strike are basing their views on?
BD