Conspiracy Theories, such a lot of questions most of which are likely to re-open some old wounds on here. I'll answer some and wait for the inevitable response from those with different views.
What was the point if for the next 15 years, the MOU which is supposed to be a legal document as opposed to trust of deeds or something like that, why not call it the same thing.
It is a legal document but it can only ever represent the intentions of the two parties. NATS management can never give us a cast iron guarantee because without a crystal ball there is no way they can foresee what will happen to pensions in the future. It's better than nothing and we ought to get it signed quick before NATS changes its mind but for those of us in NATS at PPP the Trust of Promise and the Trust Deed still represent the best protection for our pensions. For those who joined since then the MOU gives you something you didn't previously have.
can i assume that after what we have agreed which is this MOU which lasts for a period of 15 years, (and the economy is better) we revert back to the original pension scheme after that?
The main reason that the company couldn't afford the scheme in its original form was an increase in life expectancy, a fall in long term investment returns and higher long term inflation. It is unlikely that these will ever return to their previous levels so plan on more of the same or possibly another round of changes to the scheme after 15 years.
i'm very disappointd to hear that there are a few staff that have/are going to receive a 13% payrise
The reference to 13% is the amount that PB's pay went up last year. Technically it wasn't really a pay rise because the difference was he got more bonus and one has to assume that was baecause he or the company did something much better that year. Personally I'd rather not have such a big proportion of my pay riding on a set of figures although I think I could learn to live with it if I had as large a basic salary before the bonus as he does. What he might get this year isn't public knowledge and we'll have to wait for the publication of the annual report in July to find out. Other ANSP and industry CEOs are forgoing their bonus payments this year, it will be interesting to see if our's does likewise.
Furthermore, all these developments and projects going on (which some are very costly and never see fruition).....what will these people do when all the projects are complete or not complete (e.g. ScottishACC) and there will be no more projects to do.
The "roadmap" has enough projects to keep many NATS staff employed for some time yet. After that we'll start all over again on the replacement for those systems.
In the meantime a proportion of those staff will be working on SESAR for the Europeans.
All there was about the NO vote was that the company will go bust and that this wasn't an option. Is this difinite or was it based on figures? maybe there are other places were the company could cut costs and not just the pension fund.
Nobody should have told you that the company would go bust if we voted No. However unless something was done to control pension costs it was very possible that the cost of the scheme would reach levels that could make the company technically bankrupt. That was a very real risk to our pensions but nobody really knew what would happen.