BD.
I Do not agree with your "deductions"
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.
Yes, NATS must pay into CAAPS.The rest of the sentence doesn't make sense (nor is it strictly gramatical)
CAAPS is actually performing VERY WELL. There is no
evidence that it will not continue to do so. Just becasue other schemes etc etc....
no reduction in its contributions to CAAPS and a highly likely need to increase them.
More supposition, or if you prefer, guess work. It can equally be argued that there will no need to increase contributions. (Don't forget NATS has had a pensions holiday because CAAPS is doing so well)
How will CAAPS be able to pay out pensions if NATS goes bust
"If" NATS goes bust, bears some examination. Would any UK government let NATS go to the wall? I think not, especially as it owns 49% of the company.
NATS does not need to make HUGE profits. The regulator is there is ensure that NATS does not abuse it's monopoly in trying to do so.
NATS can well afford it's CAAPS obligations, now and in the future. It might be squeezed a bit (or might not) and might not be able to make big a profit in the future.
BEX.