I was sure the pension briefing was quite clear that the pension holiday never saved us from going under, it helped our cash flow but it was only the new investment from HMG and BAA that saved us from going bust.
Technically it was the £30 Million short term loan from the Treasury that actually stopped NATS going bust. It was the composite solution that got NATS back from the brink to a more stable financial footing. There were a number of elements in that composite solution all of which were required for it to work. One of those elements was £120 Million of savings within NATS of which the pension holiday formed a part. I'm not quite sure of the distinction between improving cash flow and stopping the company going bust, the two are normally equivalent for a company in the state that NATS was at the time.
If NATS didn't pay off the £65 million loan early* (plus £15 million early redemption charge) then profits would have been considerably higher, there is no doubt about this. Profits in the future will also be higher because of this early repayment.
Certainly higher but considerably higher ? It may be true but you can't justify that statement on the information in the public domain. As much of the repayment appears to have been financed by additional borrowing in NERL my guess would be about £15 million which was the redemption cost. There is no doubt that NATS expects to make savings as a result of that move because nobody spends £15 million unless they will and of course those savings will reflect in the profit figure in the future. I'm slightly puzzled that you think there is something wrong in that. Remember that the RPI-x formula for the bulk of its income means that NATS has to find savings year on year just to stay in the same place and if it makes those savings with financial manipulation it isn't making them through staff cuts which is the inevitable end game with an RPI-x charging regime.