I do agree - my feelings are that NATS management chose to apply the trustees' guidance on contribution rate to the letter in order to force this situation.
They have paid what they were required to pay - the minimum required. But, given they were already telling us there was an issue, the chose not to do something about it right there and then... reducing the future problem at source.
My point is that such mechanisms are subject to strict rules and procedures and everything they have done is within those. However, that doesn't mean they couldn't have done a lot more to address the issue.
Having received an email copy of an desperate plea from the top TU guys to please accept the deal... it would seem they are a bit nervous the vote will not go as planned. I'll be doing my bit.
EDIT: I must also add (strangely in defence of NATS) that my understanding is management did propose SMART a good while back.. but under their mandate to reject any discussion on the pensions issue completely, the TUs wouldn't entertain it. How times change.