Originally Posted by
jonny B good
BDI...
You keep saying that NATS has been told by the regulator to cut its pensions costs. Please show me where they have said this?
-
"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."......A direct quote from the Airline response to CP2.....Don't take pension hols then expect use to pay for them later....NOT....cut your pension costs, as you would have us believe.
The bit where they specifically disallow NATS from passing through pension on new joiners from 1 Jan 2006, which I've asked for your comment on previously. why did the regulator do that do you think?
I REPEAT, and NATS AGREE...THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE PENSION SCHEME.
You miss out the magic word, currently. There is currently no problem with the scheme.
IF the surplus begins to fall, and it appears that in the future NATS contributions rates need to rise to an unrealistic level, then SURELY THAT IS THE TIME TO LOOK AT CHANGES, NOT WHEN THERE IS NOTHING WRONG !!
Thats depends on whether you want to take a reactive approach, when its all falling about your ears, or a proactive approach and ensure things don't get to the stage of having to take action quickly.
NATS Pensions costs are NOT increasing as the surplus is funding them. If the surplus begins to drop, then of course lets look at changes, but again I ask....Why Now??
Reactive versus proactive. I know the approach I prefer.
I'm happy to back up what I say with quotes and facts, Can you do the same??
Uuumm I thought I had been, what have I missed?
BD
P.S. Could you please cut back on the shouting, really jars on the eyes.