Mr 777, those of us in the company before 2001 are not really protected by the 'promise' either, as it can be ignored if the company is in severe financial difficulties.
What are severe financial difficulties? Who decides that and over how long a time period you have to be in them for, does it have to be both NSL & NERL in them or just one, or even NATS holding company?
Nobody knew at the briefing I attended, still waiting to hear, but if any of us think we're safe because of a promise at the time of PPP, time to read the small print and wonder about just how wooly it sounds I'm afraid.
As for the pensions holiday, yes it seems misguided now, but NATS was ever thus (especually regarding recruitment, feast or famine in taking on new trainees, and still famine everywhere results). The fact seems to be that the 'surplus' we had does not alter the rate of contributions required going forward, merely when or if even more is required to maintain a fully paid up fund. Yes our payrises are partly responsible, along with increaed longevity, inflation, tax and pension accounting rule changes and god knows what else, but the fact remains that our pension is just too generous in terms of future benefits for the company to afford to maintain as is.
Is this the best negotiated outcome? Not sure, but I truly think that is the only question.