Brummbrumm said : "I didn't. I went in armed with all the facts from the briefingdocuments, the company accounts and the advice of an independant financial advisor."
The briefing documents you mention here I assume was that lovely expensive glossy pamphlet sent out by NATS and NTUS designed to get everyone on side with the idea's that WE need to do something to OUR pension because THEY ran the surplus down to the bare minimum so there was no room to manoevure when the markets fell.
not be in quite as mucg deficit as it was at the Sept 08 valuation (£595m)
These monthly figures given at the briefing were a ridiculous bit of scaremongering I doubt that with the sudden collapse of the markets that any pension fund would have looked rosy in September. The guy from Mercer at the meeting even stated that the £500 million deficit was a short term thing as the markets would recover.
The thing all the YES voters seem to be overlooking is that the company doesn't need to find £120 million a year to fund the Pension they need to find an extra £65 million in 2010 to fund the pension if the 2009 triennial review keeeps the underlying rate at 42%. Now I'm no financial genius but I think that we made £65 million profit this year and that doesn't even take in to account all the money wasted by NATS on repaying loans early and the subsequent penalties in doing so.
As the wonderful story on NATSNET said the company is financially sound and making money.
The company will not go bust because of our Pension it will if our management keep negotiating NSL contracts that don't cover our costs and agreeing to the CAA's price capping without argument.