Originally Posted by
expediteoff
It's exactly because you can't predict the future that such a "holiday" should not have been allowed. Without the "holiday" the fund would be far healthier.
The fund is still healthy, still in surplus but PREDICTED not to be if action wasn't taken. What would happen to the surplus IF the market hadn't declined? It couldn't be distributed amongst the people paying into the pot.
Not forgetting NATS was still troubled by the drop in revenue from 9/11, which had triggered additional loans of some £60 million. It seems to me (obvious ass kissing management lackey that I am
) that NATS behaved like any business would in similar circumstances, it tightened its belt. Just as it is now with the economic downturn looming and recruitment of paper shuffling office workers curtailed and contractors let go.
BD