The main driver for the significant rise in underlying rate is the guidance from the Pensions Regulator that Trustees should assume much longer life and generally increasing life span. Each year of additional pension adds a great deal to the liability.
And why has this
fact (increasing lifespan),
that has been documented for years and is well known, suddenly come as such a surprise to NATS?
Why was it not considered when they decided to take the pension break and reduced contributions? Increased longevity has been known about far longer ago than July 2001.
It wasn't considered because it did not suit them to plan ahead to keep the pension easily viable; (I say 'easily' as it is still viable, whatever management say); most likely as keeping it viablet does not sit well with selling the company, or at least selling NSL.
It's p!ss poor planning ahead (or deliberate negligence) like this that makes me think that all the smoke and mirrors about the pension cap meaning NATS and the actuaries can 'plan ahead' better is a load of bull, and makes me want to vote 'NO' because I don't think that whatever we do now will stop them (NATS) coming back in 5 or 10 years claiming they need to take even more drastic cuts.