Originally Posted by
BEXIL160
And what ACTUALLY happened to the Railtrack pension fund after the company was returned to a "not for profit company?" Terms and conditions for most of the workforce didn't change, although a 100 or so managers were made redundant.
Its an example of how this government will lie to push companies into receivership and back into public ownership.
The regulator is there to make sure NATS doesn't abuse it's monopoly status. There is no evidence to suggest that NATS cannot fund its CAAPS obligations without "pass-through", it simply won't be in a position to make BIG profits.
Smaller profits are more of a worry to businessmen like barron, whose whole philosophy leans towards maximising profit at all costs.
One the one hand you acknowledge that the regulator regulates what profit NATS makes but on the other you state that Paul Barrons intent is to maximise profit. Which is it because both cannot be correct?
BD