BDiONU
As usual from you, a decent, reasonable question without histrionics. Short answer - they may well have (though how stringently I do not know) - however part of the point I am trying to get across with my very simplistic take on business accountancy and the formula in my previopus post is that NATS (the company) should be paying for it's bills first, before deciding how much money it can pay out for projects/towards early settlement of loans/share dividends etc.
As it stands, looking at it that way, NATS has more than enough pre-tax profits to supplement the pension fund by the £60 odd million per annum it suggests will be needed.
I'm not one of those who thinks that we should not do something to help the penson fund, but I would like to see a lot more give from the company as I believe it can afford it. People who have been to briefings are indicating that we are not being shown what other avenues have been explored - we are being sold this one fix as the only viable option.
If that's the truth, why don't management back it up with the facts and figures to show us why all other options are doomed - then people will vote 'yes'. Being force fed one solution, when the company is, by all accounts, doing very well is not conducive to getting the workforce on-side.