I have to take issue with some of your supposed 'facts' 
1)
The regulator has NOT said that NATS must reduce its pension costs. If you think otherwise, please, please tell me where and what they have said !!
If you have taken the time to read cp2 and the Airlines response to it, you can see what was actually said.
"For instance, it would be unacceptable if NATS were able to benefit from savings in operating expenditure such as those that could be made by cutting back on pension contributions, at the expense of higher costs in future." ie. don't cut back on contributions now, then ask us to make them up in the future. It doesn't say you must cut your pension costs !!
2) All companies pass their costs onto their customers, pensions included. NATS is no different in this. More so, NATS only pay a rate of 12.2% into pensions. This is considerably lower than most companies. To save money on pensions, this rate would need to be reduced even further.
So just how little do they want to pay towards pensions?? 3) Yes, the AIrline Group 'bailed' NATS out after 9/11 BUT with the help of our pension fund.
NATS rate before 9/11 was about 16%, they then paid 0% for several years and now are only at 12.2%. 4)
NATS are NOT pumping huge sums into the pension scheme. They contribute 12.2% (about £30 million) a year into a fund worth over £2000 million.
5) The surplus has dropped due to lower NATS contributions, Pension Holidays, Equity market crash in 1990 and 9/11. Yet, it still is in surplus and subsidising NATS conributions which are lower than they were prior to 9/11 (12.2% vs 16%). Also, the markets are reaching their highest levels since the 'crash' and there is no reason to believe that after the triennial revue, the
SURPLUS WILL HAVE INCREASED to well over £200million.
The
market performance is better now than 10yrs ago when our pensions subsidised NATS.
I thank you for your time and indulgence
