Originally Posted by
jonny B good
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 !!
A matter of interpretation methinks
How do we know what the future markets will be giving in the way of returns on investments? Since the impact of reducing future pension costs will take years to achieve I think action has to be taken now. I note you make no mention of the regulator ceasing to allow pass through of pension costs for new employees. Why did they do that do you think?
2) All companies pass their costs onto their customers, pensions included. NATS is no different in this.
But NATS is different in that its a monopoly and its regulated by the government, other companies are regulated (for want of a better word) by market forces. In addition the regulator has stopped allowing NATS to pass through pension costs for new staff. No other company has this burden
AFAIK.
More so, NATS only pay a rate of 12.2% into pensions. This is considerably lower than most companies.
Because its currently using the CAAPS surplus to make up the 'shortfall'. I believe the figures are that NATS should be contributing 28%. That NATS is fortunate enough to be able to use the 'surplus' is all due to sound investment and proper funding over the years.
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??
How do you predict the future and know that the market will give reasonable returns in the future so that NATS could continue to fund the 'shortfall' with the CAAPS surplus? Remember that CAAPS must pay out until everyone is dead.
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%.
As they're entitled to do, what they're not entitled to do is to jeopardise the fund.
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.
£30m is a bit more than my take home
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%).
Your point being what? NATS are still making contributions and they're increasing as they're being squeezed on passing through pension costs to their customers..
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.
Whats 10 years in the timescales of our lifetimes? How do you know what the markets going to be doing in 10 years? Or when I retire? Or when I'll statistically die? Or when my wife will statistically die? There is no reason to suppose that the surplus will not have ceased to exist in the future. Myself I take a pessimistic view and I want to protect
my pension. The whole discussion about pensions is about closing CAAPS to new staff, not about affecting current members pensions.
I thank you for your time and indulgence
And I thank you for a well argued and reasoned rebuttal of my posts to date
Its a first
BD