Originally Posted by
BEXIL160
BD.
I Do not agree with your "deductions"
Yes, NATS must pay into CAAPS.The rest of the sentence doesn't make sense (nor is it strictly gramatical)
Apologies for my poor English. The surplus that CAAPS makes (its profit) is being used by NATS to offset its own contributions.
CAAPS is actually performing VERY WELL. There is no evidence that it will not continue to do so. Just becasue other schemes etc etc.....
It performs well in part because NATS continues to pump funds into it. Neither you nor I can forecast the money markets (or we wouldn't be discussing CAAPS pensions!) but experience shows that they go up and down. If they go down.............
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).
Yes a guess because I cannot see into the future but I do prefer to look at worst case scenario's when my pension is at stake. How many thousands of people got bitten by endowment policies which looked OK when they took them out?
"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.
One word. Railtrack.
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.
But as I explained the regulator has signalled, very clearly, its intent to force NATS into taking action over pensions. NATS affords its obligations now because the regulator is allowing the cost to be passed onto the airlines. Its signalling that in future it will not allow this.
Am I missing the point somewhere?
BD