Originally Posted by
jonny B good
BDI
Yet another rebuffal, I'm sorry to say:
:
You're entitled
Nothing much that I can rebutt though as most things we agree on, its simply a matter of interpretation. Although I'm not aware of the details of any other monopoly regulated by government as NATS is.
5) Please stick to the facts...NATS contributions are not rising. They were 16% prior to 9/11. They then feel to 0%, and are only at 12.2% now, with the surplus increasing year on year (see NATS own publised accounts).
-
Also, pensions are a long-term investment. YES, 10 yrs is a short time, it was used to show that the only time our HUGE surplus feel was after the equity crash from 9/11. Prior and post that, our savvy investers have consistently out performed the required market return, hence the HUGE surplus is continuing to grow, even after pensions holidays and lower contributions from NATS.:
Sigh. As the regulator has fired the warning shot of ceasing to allow pass through its inevitable that NATS conributions over the years must increase (although employee contributions are only 6%). Yes the fund is doing well
at the moment but if it ceases to do well NATS must (by law) make up the shortfall every year.
Surely we do not want to go down the road of a 2 Tier NATS, with people doing the same job being paid differently (Yes, pensions is a payment).
And thats different to how things are now in what way? Yes it would make a slight difference in negotiated grades (dependent on what the replacement scheme is and remember that no one forces you to work for NATS, new people have a choice) but not to Personal Contract employees. Also, without going too far down this route, it wouldn't be different to, for example, ATC (T&S) grades who do what were formerly ATCO desk jobs for less money and without the 'benefit' of shift pay (NOS) which ATCO's will always get, irrespective if its been 30 years since they last controlled an aircraft or worked a shift.
When payments from new members stop entering the current scheme, it makes the scheme more at risk as any long-term growth potential is removed. If there ever was another bad market crash, the scheme would then be more likely to face difficulty.
I disagree. Members pay only a 6% contribution (NATS pays 12.2%) but eventually receive a VERY substantial return. NATS is obligated, by law, to ensuring that the pension scheme has sufficient funds to be able to pay out everything its committed to. CAAPS, like every pension fund since the Thatcher days, is capped on its 'profit' which must be ploughed back in or distributed to its members somehow. BTW you're also arguing both sides here, on the one hand how brilliantly the fund is doing with its large surplus (which gets ploughed back in) and on the other how it would be doom and gloom if there were a crash.
BD