eglnyt
I know exactly what the cap does which is why, in my post, I stated all it does is make NATS look healthy on paper, (based on assumptions).
So more conjecture thrown into the pot, I really don't understand how assumptions can be deemed to make the future rosy.
NATS only stands to gain real hard cash with the cap if a future pay rise is above RPI+0.5%.
What the cap does, is makes the pension burden more palatable for potential buyers.
If the future is not rosy, what chance have we got of a pay rise greater than RPI+0.5% anyways?? This cap is all about assumption, it is not the same as cold hard cash.
The pension fund is in trouble for many reasons, one of those is the fact that management failed to look ahead and plan effectively for the position we are in now... they merrily took pension holidays and paid reduced rates, effectively cutting the surplus (which
was totally legal), however they now want us to believe that they will manage the fund better in the future? They were working on short term solutions, as usual with NATS.
I wonder why people are so cynical?!!!
Those different assumptions have a very big difference on the predicted liability which in turn reduces by some margin the underlying contribution rate.
Which is exactly the process the company allegedley followed when it decided to take contribution breaks and pay less than the full contribution in other years... look where it has got us now!!! (I'm not suggesting the contribution breaks and reduced levels are the only reason for our current situation, but they have had a big effect, causing us to require more drastic action)
As for setting up the company for a break up and sale of NSL - it's obviously up to individuals to believe what they wish, however is it prudent for a company (NATS) to hold onto part of it's business (which is has already split off to be a subsiduary in its own right i.e. NSL) that is making a loss?
Guys at CTC, do you really think you will all be safe if NSL was sold? Do you really think CTC would require all the staff it has, just to support NERL, DAT&S and external contracts (MOD stuff etc)?
There is potentially a lot more at stake here than just the headlines we are being given.
I repeat, all the cap does is allow NATS to make assumptions. assumptions based on conjecture - unless they (the actuaries) have already decided that the RPI we use will be 1% or something.
We are being asked to vote for this cap, do people realise the RPI used for this purpose will be set by the actuaries, and is not the governement RPI?
Do you think the actuaries are going to set a decent RPI of 4% or 5% or more?? We're being asked to vote this in and are not being given the full facts i.e. what RPI is likely to be used.
Management
must have a figure in mind if they can be so bullish and say that this pension cap will definitely help NATS financially.