Hello all, a hypothetical question which may become more important the more we delve into the subject.....
If we had not been part privatised and we faced these problems as a fully Government owned company, would we have been allowed to increase our charges to the airlines and pass them through to our pensions or would the Government have had to raid it's coffers to satisfy the trustees and implement an action plan to get the funding level back on an even keel?
My point being that something would have had to be done and they (the Government) would have had to do it. As I understand it, when we were part privatised and were given the trust of a promise, didn't that effectively underwrite our pension protections?
Why do we tend to talk about NATS as if they are solely the Airline Group and that there is nobody else to solve the conundrum. The Government are still the majority shareholders and have a vested interested in our skies operating normally. Could the union have perhaps exerted more pressure on Management and pulled back from negotiations as they were mandated to do once closure of the scheme to new entrants was mooted. Government would have at least been informed of the issues at that stage and our stance on the matter.
As it stands we are the ones who are being asked to make concessions at this stage. I have no doubt changes may have to be made in the future to secure the viability of the scheme but couldn't we have at least put a little pressure on the Government via our negotiating team?