eglnyt
Until very recently the contribution rate was always greater than the actual rate
2003 valuation stated underlying rate: 26.8%
2006: 37.3%
NATS have never paid anyting near those amounts; only enough to maintain CURRENT requirements, indeed, stock markets gains above expectations caused the surplus.
Yes the Actuaries' assumptions have caused some of the increase, but much of it would have been offset if NATS didn't go chasing 100% funding (i.e meet current pension outgoings) but actually put something infor the future pensioners' outgoings.
NATS is using the best parts of a flawed accounting method to paint a
rosy picture of their own contributions to date (paid sufficiently to meet
current costs); and used the worst part to show the dire position of the fund (can't meet
future costs)