Hi all,
Having spoken to a couple of our local reps, it is true that management are trying to link the pay negotiations with the pension debate. My understanding is that they would like to make some of the percentage increase pensionable and some of it would not be pensionable. In the long term, this could have a serious impact on what you walk away with at retirement time.
Also, it means that you would have set a precedent for management to use as a starting point to chip away at next time round. It is a bit like the pensionable pay vs bonus payments situation we had at West Drayton, and look what happened there.
Regarding the pension contribution issue, management claim that future employer contributions will become unsustainable and that the scheme and company could be put at risk. They also think that it is unreasonable for our customers to be expected to pay the bill for a final salary scheme.
Lets look at what has actually happened. Post 9/11 and PPP, which lets face it, we could have done without both of them. NATS management, knowing there was a considerable surplus in the pension scheme, asked the trustees of the pension if they could "as a short term measure" reduce contributions into the scheme in order to assist the struggling airlines and reduce our charges to them. Seemed reasonable at the time as the last thing NATS needed was for some airlines to go bankrupt and the resultant effect on route charges.
By 2004/5, things were starting to get back to normal and NATS and the airlines finances were getting back into shape. However, only recently have NATS increased there contribution rate into the scheme and not even to the normal amount.
This is a cost which the CAA currently allows us to pass onto the airlines(some of which are our emploters anyway)! Why have NATS not been paying in at the full rate for the last three or four years when our Chief Executive claims to be so aware of problems with the scheme looming on the horizon, and the company has been bragging about its profits and how well we are doing. They cannot have it both ways!
Why has this problem only been addressed in the last 12 months or so?, because management were in no rush to maintain an expensive scheme which would not be attractive to a buyer when they come to sell of the rest of the company.
So next time you buy an airline ticket or anything for that matter, make sure you give yourself a discount and bank the difference, as it would be unreasonable to expect you to pay for someone elses pension! According to NATS anyway.
Also, you have the reassurance from Mr Barron that he "is in the same boat" and has transferred his 30 years or so from his previous company into the NATS scheme, and he only got 14 or 15 years for it (boo hoo). That will be because you are earning so much more now and it is obviously worth your while doing it as you know you will walk away with a massive sume in the next two or three years when the scheme is still viable!
DEEP BREATH
rant over
