Forgot to add that if they used the 92 tables last time then they will probably use the 00 tables next time and it is the improvement in life expectancy between the two which causes some of the increase in pension costs.
So there is more than one 'standard'?
CAAPS has recently increased their life expectancy assumptions and that's why the we have a shortfall, who decides which measure to use?
-The trustees. Are there any NATS board members on the board of trustees?
While I accept there are different international accounting standards when it comes to making assumptions on life expectancy, there would appear to be some flexibilty in which 'standard' to abide by. It does not seem unreasonable to suspect management have had an opportunity to make the pension fund look especially precarious in the run up to these negotiations.